THE 

CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY 
CONTROVERSY, 

IN  1866. 


THE   OUTBREAK  OF  THE   LIFE-LONG    FEUD    BETWEEN    THE 
TWO  GREAT  STATESMEN, 

ROSCOE  CONKLING  AND  JAMES  G.  ELAINE. 


BY 


JAMES  B.  FEY, 

i 1 

Brevet  Major-General,  U.  S.  A.     [Retired.] 


PRESS   OF 

A.  G.  SHERWOOD  &  Co., 

47  Lafayette  Place,  New  York. 

1893. 


' '  WHEN    MEN    CEASE    TO    COMPLAIN   OF  INJUSTICE   IT   IS  AS   IF   THEY 
SULLENLY  CONFESSED  THAT  GOD  IS  DEAD." 


M168137 


PREFACE. 


It  is  not  to  be  expected  that  men  of  the  present 
time  will  be  interested  in  an  account  of  contentions  in 
1866  between  Mr.  Conkling  and  an  army  officer,  or  even 
between  Mr.  Conkling  and  Mr.  Blaine ;  but  they  are 
concerned  in  knowing  how  far  investigating  com 
mittees  sometimes  go  in  assumption  of  power,  in  failing 
to  duly  weigh  testimony,  in  admission  of  partiality, 
and  in  violation  of  justice. 

"The  judicial  power,"  says  the  Constitution, 
"  shall  be  vested  in  one  Supreme  Court,  and  in  such 
inferior  courts  as  the  Congress  may  from  time  to  time 
ordain  and  establish."  "  No  person  shall  be  deprived 
of  life,  liberty  or  property  without  due  process  of 
law."  There  is  no  pretense  that  "  the  Congress  "  has 
ever  ordained  or  established  investigating  committees 
of  the  House  of  Representatives,  or  the  House  itself, 
as  part  of  the  "  judicial  power  "  of  the  United  States, 
or  as  a  power  of  any  kind,  through  which  persons  may 
be  deprived  of  life,  liberty  or  property.  When  our 
Government  was  formed,  the  British  House  of  Com 
mons  had  pronounced  "that  whatever  is  enacted  or 
declared  for  law  by  the  Commons  in  Parliament  as 
sembled  hath  the  force  of  law,  and  all  the  people  of 
this  nation  are  concluded  thereby,  although  the  con 
sent  and  concurrence  of  the  King  or  House  of  Peers  be 
not  had  thereto."  The  framers  of  our  Constitution 
purposely  withheld  from  the  House  of  Representatives 


6  PREFACE. 

the  extraordinary  power  declared  by  the  House  of 
Commons,  and  also  the  power  exercised  by  the  Com 
mons,  to  confiscate  property,  imprison  Judges,  cut  off 
men's  noses  and  ears,  and  commit  other  like  atrocities. 
Such  acts  formed  precedents  to  be  shunned,  not  fol 
lowed.  Under  our  system,  every  offense  calling  for 
loss  of  life,  liberty  or  property,  comes  within  the 
jurisdiction  of  one  court  or  another,  ordained  and 
established  by  or  under  the  Constitution.  For  a 
legislative  body,  by  virtue  of  its  so-called  "privilege  " 
to  punish  a  citizen  without  law,  judge  or  jury  is  in 
consistent  with  the  principles  of  freedom  and  justice 
imbedded  in,  and  essential  to,  our  governmental  sys 
tem.  Nevertheless,  our  House  of  Representatives, 
by  its  own  dictum,  deprives  persons  of  their  liberty 
and  good  name.  That  this  unauthorized  and  irre 
sponsible  mode  of  punishment  ought  to  be  curbed, 
there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt. 

As  the  action  and  power  of  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives  are  discussed  in  some  detail  in  the  following 
pages,  I  deem  it  proper  to  say  that  I  have  the  pro 
foundest  respect  for  Congress,  and  I  intend  by  these 
pages  no  breach  of  privilege  and  no  discourtesy  to 
any  department  or  institution  of  the  Government. 

So,  too,  with  individuals  upon  whose  parts  I  com 
ment,  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  injure  or  offend  anyone. 
My  object  is  to  present  a  plain  and  correct  account  of 
a  public  matter  in  which  I  was  misjudged  and 
wronged.  In  doing  that  I  must  hew  to  the  line,  let 
the  chips  fly  where  they  will. 

A  committee  of  the  House  in  the  39th  Congress 
was  appointed  April  30,  1866,  "to  investigate  the 


PREFACE. 


statements  and  charges  made  by  Hon.  Roscoe  Conk- 
ling  in  his  place  last  week  against  Provost  Marshal 
General  Fry  and  his  Bureau,  whether  any  frauds 
have  been  perpetrated  in  his  office  in  connection  with 
the  recruiting  service  ;  also  to  examine  into  the  state 
ments  made  by  General  Fry  in  his  communication  to 
Hon.  Mr.  Blaine,  read  in  the  House  this  day." 

This  committee  failed  to  investigate  the  state 
ments  and  charges  made  by  Mr.  Conkling  against  me, 
but  made  a  so-called  examination  into  the  statements 
made  in  my  communication  to  Mr.  Blaine  and  reported 
that  my  letter,  which  at  Mr.  Blaine's  instance  was  read 
at  the  Clerk's  desk  by  permission  of  the  House,  was  a 
breach  of  privilege  by  me,  and  pronounced  the  state 
ments  in  it  entirely  without  foundation  in  truth. 
The  House  adopted  the  committee's  report. 

From  such  a  finding  by  the  people's  representa 
tives  there  is  no  appeal,  except  to  the  people  them 
selves.  It  therefore  seems  incumbent  upon  me  to 
lay  before  that  high  tribunal  proof  that  the  state 
ments  made  by  me  in  1866  in- a  letter  to  Mr.  Blaine 
concerning  a  contention  in  the  House  between  him  and 
Mr.  Conkling  are  true.  This  forces  me  to  examine 
in  detail  the  committee's  record  and  findings,  and  is 
my  apology  for  asking  my  readers  to  go,  as  patiently 
as  they  can,  through  my  long  and  somewhat  tedious- 
"  Review  of  the  Committee's  Report,"  Chapter  V. 

J.  B.  F. 


CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 

The  so-called  Conkling  and  Blaine-Fry  affair  oc 
curred  in  1866,  a  quarter  of  a  century  ago.  It  has  passed 
almost  beyond  the  domain  of  feeling  with  me.  I  think 
I  can  treat  it  without  passion  or  prejudice.  The  first 
time  I  remember  meeting  Mr.  Conkling  was  in  1865, 
when  he  visited  Washington  upon  the  recruiting  busi 
ness  in  his  District.  I  had  no  real  personal  acquaint 
ance  with  him,  and  I  have  not  a  particle  of  animosity 
towards  him.  We  met  again  in  General  Grant's  parlor  in 
1883  soon  after  the  General's  financial  troubles.  I 
was  standing  near  Mrs.  Grant  when  Mr.  Conkling  ap 
proached.  She  introduced  us,  and  we  shook  hands. 
When  taking  my  leave  a  little  later,  I  walked  up 
to  Mr.  Conkling  where  he  sat  talking  to  General  Grant, 
and  calling  him  by  name,  bade  him  good  night,  offer 
ing  him  my  hand,  which  he  took,  making  a  polite  re 
sponse.  We  were  then,  so  to  speak,  both  on  the 
retired  list  of  public  service.  That  was  the  only  time 
I  met  him  after  1866,  and  no  communication  or  mes 
sage  ever  passed  between  us  after  that  date. 

I  made  Mr.  Elaine's  acquaintance  in  Washington 
in  1863.  We  were  soon  upon  friendly,  even  intimate 
terms.  Since  1866  our  paths  have  been  far  apart ;  we 
have  seldom  met,  and  have  had  but  little  corre 
spondence,  none  that  I  recall  of  importance  concerning 
the  old  fracas. 

In  gallantly  repulsing  Mr.  Conkling's  assault  upon 

9 


10  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FEY    CONTEOVEESY. 

me  in  the  House,  Mr.  Elaine  was  moved  by  a  sense  of 
justice  and  fair  play.  He  was  under  no  obligation  to 
espouse  my  cause  then  or  guard  my  interests  subsequent 
ly.  He  was  continuously  in  public  life  and  deserved 
the  prestige  of  victory  in  the  debate  which  he  enjoyed. 
It  has  been  said  that  this  quarrel  created  a  hos 
tility  between  Mr.  Elaine  and  Mr.  Conkling  which 
prevented  the  former  and  perhaps  the  latter  from 
being  elected  to  the  Presidency.  "  Politics  makes 
strange  bed  fellows,"  but  I  believe  there  would  have 
been  a  rupture  between  Mr.  Elaine  and  Mr.  Conkling 
if  this  affair  had  never  occurred.  The  debate  upon 
the  occasion  shows  feelings  and  traits  which  promised 
anything  but  harmonious  political  work.  The  "  with 
ering  sarcasm  "  which  these  distinguished  men  hurled 
at  each  other  in  that  debate  manifested  bad  feeling  so 

o 

intense,  firmly  rooted,  and  so  well  grown  as  to  be  sure 
of  fruitage  sooner  or  later.  A  split  with  lasting  con 
sequences  between  these  two  Republican  members  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  it  seems  to  me,  was  in 
evitable.  Nevertheless,  it  is  certain  that  the  enmity 
between  Mr.  Conkling  and  Mr.  Elaine  was  an  impor 
tant  factor  in  the  affairs  of  the  Republican  party,  hav 
ing  a  marked  effect  in  the  convention  of  1876,  before 
which  both  were  strongly  supported,  with  the  result 
that  Mr.  Hayes  was  chosen,  and  in  the  convention  of 
1880,  which  nominated  General  Garfield,  who  was 
elected.  President  Garfield  appointed  Mr.  Elaine 
Secretary  of  State,  and  it  is  probable  that  the  old  feud 
had  much  to  do  with  Mr.  Conkling's  resignation  as 
Senator,  his  failure  to  secure  a  re-election,  and  his  dis 
appearance  from  public  life. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY  CONTROVERSY.  1  1 

In  1884,  Mr.  Elaine  was  the  Republican  nominee 
for  the  Presidency,  and  there  is  good  reason  to  believe 
that  he  would  have  been  elected  if  he  had  received  the 
earnest  support  of  Mr.  Conkling. 

A  committee  of  the  House,  the  tribunal  chosen  by 
Mr.  Conkling  to  investigate,  reported  fully  and  un 
equivocally  in  his  favor,  condemning  me  directly  and 
Mr.  Elaine  indirectly.  Nevertheless,  friends  of  Mr. 
Conkling  have  from  time  to  time  come  before  the 
public  to  prove  that  he  was  victorious  or  to  defend 
him  against  the  consequences  of  his  victory.  More 
than  once,  the  report  against  me  by  the  investigating 
committee  has  been  shown  in  the  most  highly  colored 
light,  not  so  much,  I  imagine,  to  injure  me,  as  to  reach 
Mr.  Elaine,  whose  censure  by  the  committee  and  the 
House  was  comparatively  indirect. 

When  the  committee's  report  was  made  public  in 
1866,  I  was  advised  to  apply  for  a  military  Court  of 
Inquiry,  and  Mr.  Elaine  himself  at  the  time  thought 
such  a  tribunal  desirable,  lest  the  Senate  should  regard 
the  action  of  the  House  as  a  reason  for  refusing  to 
confirm  my  nomination  for  promotion  or  appointment 
in  the  future.* 

*  It  did  not  turn  out  so.  All  the  appointments  conferred  upon  me 
were  confirmed,  and  commissions  were  issued  to  me  as  follows: 

Major- General  by  brevet,  July  17,  1866,  "  for  faithful,  meritorious, 
and  distinguished  services  in  the  Provost  Marshal-General's  department." 

Brigadier-General  by  brevet,  June  10.  1868,  "  for  gallant  and  meri 
torious  services  in  the  battles  of  Shiloh,  Tennessee,  and  Perryville,  Ken 
tucky." 

Colonel  by  brevet,  "for  gallant  and  meritorious  services  in  the 
battle  of  Bull  Run  [1st.],  Virginia." 

Colonel  in  the  Adjutant  Gen3ral's  department,  March  12,  1875. 

In  all  these  cases  my  appointments  were  confirmed  by  the  Senate. 
When  part  of  them  were  acted  upon,  Mr.  Conkling  was  a  member  of  the 
Senate  ;  and  he  was  a  member  of  the  House  when  the  others  were  con 
sidered 


12  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

But  I  maintained  that  it  was  not  for  me  to  seek 
or  avoid  investigation.  I  felt  that  I  had  performed 
my  duties  honestly  and  efficiently,  and  that  time 
would  bring  me  justice.  That  belief  and  the  condi 
tion  of  public  affairs  induced  me  to  remain  silent. 
The  desperate,  protracted  and  exhausting  civil  war 
was  over.  The  great  armies  which  I  had  much  to 
do  in  raising  had  been  mustered  out,  and  their  com 
ponents  had  returned  to  civil  pursuits.  The  whole 
country  was  rejoicing  over  the  return  of  peace,  and 
the  Government  and  people  were  concentrating  their 
thoughts  and  energies  upon  the  reconstruction. of  the 
States  lately  in  rebellion,  and  upon  the  establishment 
of  harmony  and  good  feeling.  I  was  unwilling  to 
thrust  myself  forward  for  a  vindication  which  I  felt 
time  would  bring.  While  waiting  for  the  verdict  of 
time,  my  grievance  has  become  old  and  dry,  and  I  have 
hesitated  to  ask  the  public  to  touch  it,  though  others 
from  time  to  time  have  brought  it  up  to  my  detriment. 

The  New  York  Herald  of  June  4,  1888,  gave 
place  to  an  elaborate  and  able  article  by  Mr.  George 
C.  Gorham,  with  the  caption  in  large  letters,  "  Justice 
to  Mr.  Conkling."  Mr.  Gorham  says  in  his  opening : 
"  I  should  be  recreant  to  the  strongest  ties  of  friend 
ship  which  bound  me  to  him,  and  false  to  the  promises 
I  made  him,  if  I  failed  to  give  his  explanation  of  the 
two  matters  concerning  which  he  felt  he  had  been  mis 
judged.  In  doing  this,  censure  must  fall  on  some,  for 
the  truths  that  alone  can  set  him  right  convict 
others  of  outrage  and  wrong."  One  of  the  two  matters 
concerning  which  Mr.  Gorham  gives  Mr.  Conkling's 
"  explanation  "  is  the  Conkling  and  Blaine-Fry  matter. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  13 

Mr.  Gorham's  account  of  it  is  incomplete  and  un 
just  to  me.  I  noticed  the  article  in  a  letter  which 
was  published  as  follows  in  the  Herald  of  June  10, 

1888:   ' 

To  THE  EDITOR  OF  THE  HERALD  :  — 

I  do  not  suppose  that  in  his  article,  published  in  the  Herald  of  the 
4th  inst. ,  Mr.  George  C.  Gorham  gave  a  thought  to  me.  No  doubt 
his  only  purpose  in  quoting  the  report  made  against  me  by  a  commit 
tee  of  the  United  States  House  of  Representatives  in  1866  was  to  sus 
tain  his  contention  that  Mr.  Conkling  got  the  better  of  Mr.  Elaine  in 
an  acrimonious  debate  in  which  the  former  attacked  and  the  latter  de 
fended  me  in  the  House  of  Representatives.  But  I  feel  called  upon  to 
say  a  few  wbrds.  It  is  true  that  a  committee  of  the  House,  after  a  so- 
called  investigation,  reported,  and  the  House  adopted,  a  resolution 
saying  that  statements  made  by  me  in  a  letter  concerning  Mr.  Conkling 
were  "wholly  without  foundation  in  truth,"  and  that  they  ''origi 
nated  in  no  misapprehension  of  facts, ' '  but  ' '  in  the  resentment  and 
passion  of  the  author. ' ' 

Mr.  Gorham  shows  the  great  injustice  done  to  Mr.  Conkling  by 
politicians,  and  he  closes  his  article  by  citing  in  Mr.  Cockling' s  favor 
the  sentiment,  to  which  I  fully  accede,  that  "  the  strength  of  a  man's 
character  is  better  shown  by  what  he  endures  than  by  what  he  per 
forms.  ' ' 

I  make  no  charge  of  corruption,  conspiracy  or  malice,  either  in 
the  committee  or  House,  but  I  am  prepared  to  show  as  clearly  as  Mr. 
Gorham  has  shown  for  Mr  Conkling  that  I  was  deeply  wronged.  But 
I  cannot  ask  the  public  to  listen  to  my  desiccated  grievances.  Instead 
of  that,  however,  possibly  your  readers  will  permit  me  to  say  that  I 
have  been  an  officer  of  the  army  more  than  forty-one  years,  having 
entered  at  the  age  of  twenty.  During  all  that  time  I  have  never  been 
plaintiff  or  defendant  in  a  suit,  have  never  been  called  before  a 
court  martial  or  court  of  inquiry,  have  never  been  under  charges  or 
under  arrest,  and,  so  far  as  I  remember,  have  never  received  from  civil 
or  military  authority  an  order  or  letter  conveying  censure  or  reproof. 

Accepting  Mr.  Gorham's  statements  as  correct,  he  shows  that, 
with  envy,  hatred  and  malice  in  their  hearts,  a  host  of  Republican 
politicians,  among  them  editors,  Senators,  Cabinet  Ministers  and  the 
President  of  the  United  States,  conspired  to  humiliate  and  destroy  so 
good  and  great  a  man  as  Roscoe  Conkling  ;  and  that,  in  spite  of  Mr. 
Conkling' s  ability,  purity,  strength  and  courage,  the  conspiracy  drove 
him  from  public'  life  in  a  state  of  disgust  that  attended  him  to  the 


]  -4  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

grave,  and  with  a  reputation  that  Mr.  Gorham  thought  called  for  de 
fence  in  some  particulars  at  his  hands.  In  the  light  of  Mr.  Gorham' s 
demonstration  concern  in 3.  this  great  man,  it  is  not  worth  while  to 
trouble  the  public  with  an  account  of  how  a  comparatively  obscure 
army  officer,  the  head  of  a  military  bureau,  which  necessarily  bore 
heavily  upon  the  political  affairs  of  every  Congressional  district,  got 
injured  when  the  two  leading  politicians  of  the  party  Mr.  Gorham 
brings  to  attention,  fought  over  him.  Personally  I  knew  Mr.  Conk- 
ling  only  as  a  "  good  hater"  ;  but  I  venture  the  assertion  in  all  candor 
that  he  did  not  need  the  defence  Mr.  Gorham  has  made  for  him  -the 
defence  of  a  zealous  friend  and  an  accomplished  writer,  but  a  defence 
which  places  in  a  despicable  light  many  of  the  politicians  and  methods 
of  the  party  of  which  Mr.  Conkling  was  an  able  and  conspicuous 
member  JAMES  B.  FRY. 

NEW  YORK  CITY. 

My  letter,  so  far  as  I  know,  elicited  no  response  or 
inquiry,  and  I  let  the  subject  drop. 

In  an  article  in  the  New  York  Sun  of  June  14, 
1891,  Mr.  George  Alfred  Townsend  says:  "  In  1869  Mr. 
Blaine  said  to  me,  Conkling  is  as  smart  as  he  can  be," 
and  Mr.  Townsend  adds  :  "  Fry  appears  to  have  left 
Blaine  without  evidence."  I  think  the  following 
pages  prove  that  I  did  not  leave  Mr.  Blaine  without 
evidence. 

Recently,  moreover,  a  life  of  Roscoe  Conkling,  by 
his  nephew,  Mr.  Alfred  Conkling,  has  appeared.  The 
subject,  and  perhaps  the  treatment  of  it,  entitles  this 
work  to  a  place  in  history.  The  formal  presentation 
by  such  high  authority  as  Mr.  Gorham,  Mr.  Townsend 
and  Mr.  Alfred  Conkling  of  a  case  in  which  I  have 
long  been  deeply  concerned  makes  it  proper,  I  think, 
to  give  my  account  of  the  matter.  I  may  add  that  an 
editorial  article  in  the  New  York  Evening  Sun  of  Jan 
uary  21,  1890,  entitled,  "The  Truth  of  History  re 
specting  Roscoe  Conkling  and  J.  G.  Blaine,"  makes 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


15 


some  erroneous  and  unjust  mention  of  me,  saying: 
"  It  is  not  generally  known  that  Mr.  Conkling  intended 
to  prosecute  General  Fry  for  criminal  libel,  but  some 
one  betrayed  Mr.  Conkling's  purpose,  and  General  Fry 
went  to  California,  beyond  the  reach  of  criminal  proc 
ess.''  Friends  in  all  quarters  of  the  country  have 
brought  to  my  notice  reprints  of  this  article  in  local 
papers.  The  substance  of  the  article  will  be  covered 
by  the  general  remarks  to  follow,  but  I  may  say  here  that 
I  never  heard  of  any  intention  on  Mr.  Conkling'g  part 
to  prosecute  me,  that  I  distinctly  invited  charges  more 
than  once,  and  that  I  remained  on  duty  in  Washing 
ton  from  the  close  of  the  investigation  in  July  until  I 
was  relieved  from  duty  there  in  the  following  Novem 
ber  ;  that  I  then  went  to  California,  my  regular  mili 
tary  station,  not  of  my  own  volition,  but  in  pursuance 
of  regular  military  orders. 

When  the  time  came  for  closing  the  Bureau  of  the 
Provost  Marshal-General,  I  addressed  to  the  Secretary 
of  War  a  letter  as  follows  : 

' '  In  closing  this  office,  as  required  by  law,  and  transferring  the 
records  and  unfinished  business  to  another  Bureau,  in  accordance  with 
your  orders,  I  beg  leave  respectfully  to  urge  that,  in  case  of  any 
charges  or  allegations  of  improper  official  conduct  on  my  part,  I  may 
be  allowed  access  to  the  records  of  this  office,  and  an  opportunity  for 
explanation,  and  that  a  full  investigation  be  had  of  everything  which 
the  Department  may  deem  worthy  of  official  notice. ' ' 

So  far  as  I  know  no  charges  against  me  ever 
reached  the  War  Department,  and  nothing  in  the 
nature  of  accusations  is  to  be  found  there. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  OUTBREAK  IN  THE  HOUSE. 

In  the  House  of  Representatives,  on  the  24th  day 
of  April,  1866,  a  bill  providing  for  the  reorganization 
of  the  army  being  under  consideration— the  20th  sec 
tion  of  which  provided  for  the  permanent  establish 
ment  of  the  Bureau  of  the  Provost  Marshal  General, 
and  giving  him  the  rank  of  Brigadier-General  — Hon. 
Roscoe  Conkling  said  :* 

' '  I  move  to  strike  out  section  20  of  that  bill.  My  objection  to 
this  section  is  that  it  creates  an  unnecessary  office  for  an  undeserving 
public  servant  ;  I  have  never  heard  any  serious  attempt  to  justify  by 
argument  the  permanent  continuance  of  an  officer  whose  administra 
tion  during  the  war  has  had  in  it  so  little  to  commend,  and  so  much  to 
condemn. 

' '  I  protest  against  any  promotion  or  reward  for  the  officer  whose  in 
terests  are  involved  in  this  section.  He  holds  already  the  rank  of 
Lieutenant -Colonel  in  the  Staff  Department. 

' '  Indeed,  by  accident,  if  the  pending  bill  shall  pass,  he  will  be  ele 
vated  to  a  yet  higher  grade  ;  but  as  he  stands  now,  his  pay  amounts  to 
$3500,  or  thereabouts. 

' '  I  think  that,  for  the  present,  is  enough  for  him.  He  has  suf 
fered  nothing,  and  lost  nothing,  in  the  war,  that  I  ever  heard  of,  and  I 
protest,  in  the  name  of  my  people,  and  in  the  name  of  the  people  of  the 
Western  Division  of  New  York,  against  perpetuating  a  power  under 
which  they,  have  suffered  beyond  the  capacity  of  any  man  adequately 
to  state  in  the  time  allotted  to  me. 

'  •  Central  and  Western  New  York  have  a  right  to  feel,  and  do  feel 
deeply  on  this  subject.  My  constituents  remember,  and  other  con 
stituencies  remember,  wrongs  done  them  too  great  for  forgetfulness, 
and  almost  for  belief,  by  the  creatures  of  this  Bureau,  and  by  its  head. 

' '  We  in  the  Western  Division  of  New  York  had  sent  to  rule  over 
us  as  Assistant  Provost  Marshal  General  an  officer  of  the  Veteran  Re- 


*  For  debate  in  full,  see  Appendix  A, 

16 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  17 

serve  Corps*;  a  man  who  never  saw  a  battle,  who  never  received  a 
scratch,  or  suffered  a  day's  sickness  in  the  military  service. 

' '  I  could  not  remain  silent  when  I  know  that  in  my  own  district  and 
elsewhere  men  who  stood  up  honestly  and  attempted  to  '  resist  bounty 
jumpers'  and  thieves  were  stricken  down  and  trodden  under  foot  by 
General  Fry. 

' '  I  affirm  that  the  only  way  to  acquit  Mm  of  venality  is  to  con 
vict  him  of  the  most  incredible  incompetency. " 

When  Mr.  Conkling  began  the  foregoing  speech, 
Mr.  Elaine  was  talking  to  a  friend  in  the  diplomatic 
gallery  of  the  House,  but  his  quick  ear  caught  the 
tenor  of  the  remarks,  and  he  hurried  to  his  seat,  and 
getting  the  floor  replied  as  follows  : 

' '  I  am  in  a  very  weakly  condition  of  health  to  make  the  brief  ex 
planation  due  to  the  Military  Committee.  But  I  wish  to  state  why 
the  Committee  reported  this  section  of  the  bill  in  regard  to  which  the 
gentleman  from  New  York  shows  so  much  feeling.  I  believe  that 
among  the  earliest  acts  of  the  gentleman  from  New  York  at  this  session 
of  Congress  was  the  introduction  of  a  resolution  which  was  adopted  by 
this  House,  directing  the  War  Department  to  report  upon  the  expediency 
of  abolishing  the  office  of  Provost  Marshal  General.  In  the  routine  of 
business  the  answer  of  the  Secretary  of  War  came  to  the  Military  Com 
mittee,  and  among  the  papers  was  a  letter  from  Lieutenant-General 
Grant ;  there  was  also  an  elaborate  paper  from  General  Townsend.  They 
were  referred  to  a  Sub-Committee.  The  Committee,  upon  a  full  re 
view  of  the  papers,  and  especially  of  the  letter  of  Lieutenant-General 
Grant,  reported  this  section. ' ' 

Mr.  Elaine  had  read   at   the  clerk's  desk  Gen. 
Grant's  letter  dated  Dec.  14,  1865,  as  follows  : 

"  SIR  : — In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  13th,  in.  reference  to  deser 
tions,  I  would  make  the  following  remarks  :  I  do  not  think  the  present 
method  of  recruiting  as  carried  out  sufficient  to  fill  up  the  regular 
army  to  the  force  required,  or  to  keep  it  full  when  once  filled.  The 
duty  is  an  important  one,  and  demands,  I  think,  the  exclusive  attention 
of  an  officer  of  the  War  Department  aided  by  a  well  organized  system 
extending  over  the  country.  I  think  the  officer  best  fitted  for  that  posi 
tion  by  his  experience  during  the  present  war*  is  General  Fry,  and  would 
recommend  that  the  whole  subject  of  recruiting  be  put  in  his  hands. 
He  should  also  have  charge  of  the  apprehension  of  deserters. ' ' 

*  This  offer  was  assigned  by  me  at  request  of  the  Secretary  of  State, 
W.  H.  Seward. 


18  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

After  the  reading  of  this  letter  from  Gen.  Grant, 
Mr.  Elaine  added  : 

"The  House  will  observe  that  the  Committee  upon  Military  Affairs 
acted  precisely  in  accordance  with  the  recommendations  of  the  Lieu 
tenant-General  as  contained  in  the  letter  which  has  just  been  read.  The 
Committee's  report  was  made  in  express  conformity  with  the  recom 
mendations  of  that  officer' s  letter,  which  came  officially  before  the  Com 
mittee,  and  which  was  not  smuggled  in  in  the  manner  in  which  the  letter 
read  by  the  gentleman  from  New  York  comes  before  us.  That  is  not  an 
official  letter,  it  is  an  unofficial  note.  The  letter  just  read  by  the 
clerk  is  an  official  note  communicated  to  this  House  by  the  Secretary 
of  War  on  a  regular  call,  and  referred  by  the  House  to  the  Committee 
on  Military  Affairs. 

"  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  suppose  that  the  House  of  Representatives 
cares  anything  more  than  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  about  the 
great  recruiting  frauds  in  New  York  or  the  quarrels  of  the  gentleman 
from  New  York  with  Gen.  Fry,  in  which  quarrel  it  is  generally  un 
derstood  the  gentleman  came  out  second  best  at  the  War  Department. 
I  do  not  think  chat  such  questions  ought  to  be  obtruded  here. 
Though  the  gentleman  from  New  York  has  had  some  difference  with 
Gen.  Fry,  yet  I  take  pleasure  in  saying  that,  as  T  believe,  there  is  not  in 
the  American  army  a  more  honorable  or  high-toned  officer  than  General 
Fry.  That  officer,  I  doubt  not,  is  ready  to  meet  the  gentleman  from  New 
York  or  anybody  else  in  the  proper  forum. 

' ;  I  must  say  that  I  do  not  think  it  is  a  very  creditable  proceeding  for 
the  gentleman  from  New  York  here  in  his  place  to  traduce  General  Fry 
as  a  military  officer  where  he  has  no  opportunity  to  be  heard.  I  do  not 
consider  such  a  proceeding  the  highest  specimen  of  chivalry  that  could 
be  exhibited.  The  gentleman  from  New  York  has  had  his  issues  with 
General  Fry  at  the  War  Department.  They  have  been  adjudicated  upon 
by  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  I  leave  it  for  the  gentleman  to  say  whether 
he  came  out  first  best.  I  do  not  know  the  particulars,  the  gentleman  can 
inform  the  House.  All  I  have  to  say  is,  and  in  this  I  believe  I  speak 
the  sentiment  of  a  majority  of  the  members  of  the  House,  that  James 
B.  Fry  is  a  most  efficient  officer,  a  high-toned  gentleman,  whose  charr 
acter  is  without  spot  or  blemish,  a  gentleman  who  stands  second  to  no 
officer  in  the  American  army,  and  he  is  ready  to  meet  the  gentleman 
from  New  York  and  all  other  accusers  anywhere  and  everywhere. 

And,  Sir,  when  I  hear  the  gentleman  from  New  York  rehearse  in  the 
House,  as  an  impeachment  to  General  Fry,  all  the  details  of  the  frauds 
in  New  York  which  General  Fry  used  his  best  energies  to  repress  with 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  19 

iron    hand,   a  sense  of  indignation    carries  me    beyond  my  personal 
strength,  and  impels  me  to  denounce  such  a  course  of  proceedings. ' ' 

To  this  Mr.  Conkling  replied  : 

' '  Mr.  Speaker,  if  General  Fry  is  reduced  to  depending  for  vindica 
tion  upon  the  gentleman  from  Maine,  he  is  to  be  commiserated  certainly. 
If  I  have  fallen  to  the  neces-ity  of  taking  lessons  from  that  gentleman 
in  the  rules  of  propriety  or  of  right  or  wrong.  God  help  me.  I  say  to 
him  further  that  I  mean  to  take  no  advantage,  such  as  he  attributes,  of 
the  privilege  of  this  place  or  the  absence  of  General  Fry.  On  the  con 
trary,  I  am  ready  to  avow  what  I  have  here  declared  anywhere.  I  have 
stated  facts  for  which  T  am  willing  to  be  held  responsible  at  all  times 
and  places.  I  say  further  that  the  statements  made  by  the  gentleman 
from  Maine  with  regard  to  myself  personally,  and  my  quarrels  with 
General  Fry  and  their  result  are  false. ' ' 

' '  What, ' '  asked  Mr.  Blaine,  ' '  does  the  gentleman  mean  to  say 
was  false?"  "I  mean,"  replied  Mr.  Conkling,  "to  say  that  the 
statement  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Maine  was  false. ' ' 

Mr.  Goatling's  flat  contradiction  of  Mr.  Elaine's 
statement  concerning  quarrels  with  me  put  before  the 
House  and  the  country  an  issue  of  fact  between  the 
two. 

The  debate,  which  was  continued  upon  that  oc 
casion,  is  given  in  full,  in  Appendix  A. 

As  soon  as  I  learned  what  had  been  said  in  the 
House  on  the  24th  of  April  (which  I  think  was  from 
the  newspapers  next  morning),  I  began  a  letter  *  to 
Mr.  Blaine,  completed  and  dated  April  27,  thanking 
him  for  defending  me,  and  confirming  the  correctness 
of  what  he  said  concerning  Mr.  Conklirig's  hostility 
to  me. 

*  For  letter  in  full  see  Appendix  B. 

Two  or  three  personal  friends  were  consulted  in  the  preparation  of 
the  letter,  and  a  rough  draft  was  shown  to  Mr.  Blaine,  by  whose  advice 
some  of  the  expressions  were  sharpened.  When  completed,  the  letter 
was  shown  to  General  R.  C.  Schenck,  then  Chairman  of  the  House  Mil 
itary  Committee.  By  none  of  these  persons  was  it  even  hinted  to  me, 
so  far  as  I  remember,  that  the  letter  might  or  could  be  treated  by  the 
House  as  a  breach  of  privilege. 


20  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVEESY. 

I  did  not  prepare  the  letter  to  be  read  in  the 
House,  had  no  power  to  have  it  read  there,  and  did 
not  ask  the  House  to  have  it  read  there. 

But  I  intended  Mr.  Elaine  to  use  it  as  he  thought 
best,  to  have  the  benefit  of  all  there  was  in  it  in  his 
favor,  and  intended  also  in  some  way  to  get  it  before 
the  public  in  vindication  of  myself  against  Mr.  Conk- 
ling's  unexpected,  unjust  and  violent  attack  upon  me 
personally  and  officially. 

I  wrote  the  letter,  as  I  thought  I  had  a  right  to 
do,  in  defence  of  myself  against  defamatory  statements 
made  to  the  world,  through  the  U.S.  House  of  Repre 
sentatives,  and  I  had  no  intention  of  committing  a 
breach  of  privilege. 

Among  the  rules  of  the  House  there  was  one  to 
the  effect  that  a  member  who  read  as  a  part  of  his 
speech  a  letter  which  violated  the  privileges  of  the 
House  was  himself  responsible,  but  if  he  had  the  same 
letter  read  from  the  clerk's  desk,  and  made  it  a  part 
of  his  speech,  the  responsibility  did  not  rest  upon  the 
member,  but  upon  the  House  itself  which  permitted 
the  reading.  Mr.  Blaine  had  my  letter  read  from  the 
clerk's  desk  and  escaped  technical  responsibility  for 
breach  of  privilege  by  virtue  of  the  nice  rule  just 
mentioned. 

The  House,  however,  was  determined  to  assert  its 
high  privilege,  and  being  unable  or  unwilling  to  blame 
itself  for  the  alleged  breach  it  had  permitted,  and  also 
being  stopped  by  its  own  rules  from  holding  the  mem 
ber  who  introduced  and  used  the  letter,  fell  back  upon 
the  writer  of  the  letter.  As  I  have  always  admitted 
my  responsibility  for  the  letter,  I  do  not  desire  to 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  21 

make  use  of  this  attitude  of  the  House,  but  I  am  will 
ing  that  others  should  judge  its  fairness  and  con 
sistency. 

On  the  30th  of  April,  Mr.  Blaine  arose  in  his  place 
in  the  House  upon  the  issue  of  fact  already  mentioned 
between  him  and  Mr.  Conkling,  and  said : 

"I  hold  in  my  hand  a  letter  from  Provost  Marshal-General  Try, 
which  I  ask  to  have  read  at  the  clerk' s  desk  for  the  double  purpose  of  vin 
dicating  myself  from  the  charge  of  having  stated  in  debate  last  week 
what  was  false,  and  also  for  the  purpose,  which  I  am  sure  will  com 
mend  itself  to  the  House,  of  allowing  fair,play  to  an  honorable  man  in 
the  same  forum  in  which  he  has  been  assailed.  I  wish  further  to 
say  that  if  on  investigation  I  had  found  I  was  in  error  in  the  state 
ment  I  have  made  touching  the  member  from  the  Utica  district  of  New 
York  [Mr.  Conkling],  and  Provost  Marshal-General  Fry,  I  would,  mor 
tifying  as  it  would  have  been,  have  apologized  to  the  House.  Whether 
I  was  in  error  or  not,  I  leave  to  those  who  hear  the  letter  of  the  Provost 
Marshal-General." 

Thus  it  is  made  plain  that  the  issue  before  the 
House  was  between  Mr.  Conkling  and  Mr.  Blaine,  and 
that  the  House  admitted  my  letter  presented  by  the 
latter  as  testimony  upon  his  side  of  the  case.  The 
House,  however,  took  no  action  upon  the  issue  before 
it,  but  proceeded  against  me  for  furnishing  the  testi 
mony  which  one  of  its  members  offered,  and  which 
the  House  admitted  without  a  dissenting  voice. 

In  my  letter,  which  is  given  in  full  with  accom 
panying  documents  in  Appendix  B,  I  thanked  Mr. 
Blaine  for  having  defended  me, and  said  to  him:  "Your 
assertions  touching  Mr.  Conkling's  difficulties  with  this 
Bureau  are  amply  and  completely  justified  by  the  facts 
which  this  letter  will  disclose."  I  then  gave  a  sum 
mary  of  the  facts  referred  to.  I  went  further,  how 
ever,  than  furnishing  evidence  of  the  truth  of  Mr. 


22  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

Elaine's  statement,  and  entered  upon  a  defence  of  my 
self,  which,  as  I  viewed  the  subject,  required  a  some 
what  vigorous  attack  upon  Mr.  Conkling.  Among 
other  things  I  said  : 

' '  My  Bureau  is  a  subordinate  branch  of  the  War  Department, 
and  I  wish  here  to  point  out  clearly  the  fact  that  my  business  has  been 
conducted  under  the  constant  supervision  and  direction  of  the  Secretary 
of  War,  and  those  authorized  to  act  in  his  name.  It  ought  not  to  be 
necessary  for  me  to  remind  Mr.  Conkling  or  the  people  that  Mr.  Stan- 
ton  has  never  been  unwilling  to  make  exami nations  into  the  conduct 
of  his  subordinates,  nor  slow  to  act  upon  the  result  of  them. 

"  This  of  itself  is  a  sufficient  reply  to  Mr.  Conkling' s  abuse  of  me, 
especially  as  it  is  a  fact  that  every  request,  complaint,  or  accusation 
of  any  importance  made  by  him  to  or  affecting  this  Bureau,  has  been 
laid  before  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  passed  upon  by  him.  It  is  true  that 
the  result  has  in  nearly  every  instance  been  unfavorable  to  Mr.  Conk 
ling;  and  assuming  that  these  were  the  differences  or  quarrels  which 
were  referred  to  in  the  debate  as  those  in  which  Mr.  Conkling  came  out 
second  best,  he  asserted  what  was  not  true  when  he  denied  them.  Mr. 
Conkling  says  that  he  may  hereafter  inform  Congress  what  number  of 
all  the  men  who  received  bounty  reached  the  front,  intimating  that 
the  proportion  was  small.  I,  for  one,  should  be  glad  to  obtain  that  in 
formation.  The  duty  of  sending  men  to  the  front  rested  with  the  Ad 
jutant-General  of  the  army,  not  with  me.  He  also  hints  that  he  may 
hereafter  make  a  damaging  expose  of  the  operations  of  my  Bureau. 
Whatever  he  may  adduce  in  this  connection,  he  probably  will  not  be 
able  to  disprove  that  it  raised  more  than  a  million  of  men  for  the  army, 
that  it  arrested  and  returned  to  the  service  over  76,000  deserters,  and 
raised  by  its  own  operations  in  conformity  to  laws  over  twenty-six 
millions  of  dollars,  which  sum  has  been  properly  disposed  of.  That 
there  were  frauds  in  my  branch  of  the  service  I  admit ;  but  that  they 
prevailed  to  a  greater  degree  in  it  than  in  others,  or  that  earnest  and 
zealous  efforts  were  not  made  by  me  to  pursue,  correct,  and  punish 
them,  no  man  dare  have  the  hardihood  to  assert.  The  frauds  and 
malpractices  which  did  occur  were  almost  entirely  in  connection  with 
the  local  bounties  which  could  not  be  controlled  by  the  United  States, 
and  which  corrupted  some  of  the  officers  of  the  Bureau,  but  more  of 
the  people  at  large,  including  supervisors,  agents,  etc. ,  selected  by  the 
people  to  disburse  the  funds  which  they  so  lavishly  bestowed.  The 
general  management  of  my  business  has  received  the  approval  of  all 
dispassionate  parties  who  have  had  an  opportunity  to  judge  of  it,  in- 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  23 

eluding  the  late  President  and  that  superior  officer  to  whom  I  have 
been  directly  responsible,  whose  vigor  and  whose  capacity  and  oppor 
tunity  to  judge  are  beyond  dispute,  and  it  will  not  be  forgotten  that 
complaints  and  accusations  have  been  spread  with  great  industry  be 
fore  the  high  officials  last  referred  to.  I  have  been  at  all  times  amen 
able  to  the  severest  form  of  law,  the  Military  Code,  liable  at  any 
moment  to  summary  arrest,  court  martial,  and  extreme  punishment  in 
case  of  any  dereliction  of  official  duty.  No  one  knew  or  knows  this 
fAct  better  than  Mr.  Conkling,  and  if,  while  acting  as  Judge  Advocate 
j*nder  the  extraordinary  inquisitorial  powers  bestowed  upon  him,  he 
"Wame  into  the  possession  of  any  fact  impugning  or  impeaching  my  in 
tegrity  as  a  public  officer,  he  was  guilty  of  great  public  wrong  and  un 
faithfulness,  if  he  did  not  instantly  file  formal  charges  against  me  with 
the  Secretary  of  War.  He  can,  therefore,  only  escape  the  charge  of  delib 
erate  and  malignant  falsehood  as  a  Member  of  Congress  by  confessing 
k  an  unpardonable  breach  of  duty  as  Judge  Advocate." 

I  also  said  in  the  letter,  speaking  of  Mr.   Conk- 
ling's  service  as  special  Judge  Advocate : 

"For  his  services  in  this  connection  Mr.  Conkling  received  on  the 
9th  November  last,  from  the  United  States,  the  modest  fee  ot  $3,000," 
and  I  charged  that  ' '  he  was  as  zealous  in  preventing  prosecu 
tions  at  Utica,  as  he  was  in  making  them  at  Elmira, ' '  adding 
"  whether  his  action  in  exercising  the  functions  of  Judge  Advocate, 
and  receiving  pay  therefor  from  the  United  States  to  the  amount  of 
$3,000,  while  receiving  his  compensation  as  a  Member  of  Congress, 
was  a  violation  of  the  letter,  or  the  spirit,  or  both,  of  Article  one, 
section  two,  of  the  Constitution,  I  leave  others  to  decide. ' ' 

After  the  reading  of    the    letter    Mr.    Conkling 
made  a  speech  (see  Appendix  B),  in  which  he  said : 

• '  I  did  not  file  in  the  War  Department  long  ago  information  in 
reference  to  widespread  frauds  in  recruiting  in  the  State  of  New  York, 
in  which  extensive  combinations  of  active  men  were  banded  together 
in  office  and  out :  I  did  not  act  as  counsel  for  the  Government  in  un 
earthing  and  breaking  up  the  combinations,  and  exposing  the  actors ;  I 
did  not  devote  upwards  of  four  months  of  patient  labor  in  an  attempt 
to  arrest  the  enormous  robberies  and  wrongs  which  prevailed  in  the 
State  of  New  York ;  nor  did  I  make  an  assault  upon  this  Bureau  here 
without  counting  the  cost,  and  knowing  the  consequences.  I  was  pre 
pared  for  all  calumnies,  and  all  the  responsibility  that  he  must  take  who 
strikes  at  the  thieves,  marauders  and  miscreants  who  have  fattened 


24  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-PRY    CONTROVERSY. 

upon  the  necessities  and  needs  of  their  country.  I  knew  the  resources 
and  desperation  of  the  men  who  have  made  wealth  out  of  the  public 
woe.  '  I  did  not  forget,  nor  did  I  desire  to  avoid,  the  responsibility  of 
being  asked  to  make  good  by  proof  the  accusations  I  made.  Of  course  I 
expected,  by  despatches  to  newspapers  instigated  by  General  Fry  and  his 
satellites,  by  every  mode,  secret  and  open,  of  influencing  the  public 
judgment  and  diverting  the  attention  from  the  objects  of  accusation,  to 
be  vilified,  and  I  hope  to  be  permitted,  if  not  invited,  to  point  out  to 
some  authority  competent  to  receive  and  act  upon  it,  the  evidence  on 
which  I  relied.  That  opportunity  will  be  offered  if  a  Committee  shaljL: 
be  appointed." 

A  Committee  was  appointed  in  due  course.  Be 
fore  the  day's  debate  closed  Mr.  Elaine  answered  Mr. 
Conkling  [see  Appendix  B],  saying: 

•'  As  to  the  gentleman's  cruel  sarcasm,  I  hope  he  will  not  be  too 
severe.  Contempt  of  that  large-minded  gentleman  is  so  wilting,  his 
haughty  disdain,  his  grandiloquent  swell,  his  majestic  super-emi 
nent  overpowering  turkey -gobbler  strut,  has  been  so  crushing  to  myself 
and  all  the  members  of  this  House,  that  I  know  it  w^as  an  act  of  the 
greatest  temerity  for  me  to  venture  upon  a  controversy  with  him.  But, 
Sir.  I  know  who  is  responsible  for  all  this.  I  know  that  within  the 
last  five  weeks,  as  members  of  the  House  will  recollect,  an  extra  strut 
has  characterized  the  gentleman's  bearing.  It  is  not  his  fault.  It  is 
the  fault  of  another.  That  gifted  and  satirical  writer,  Theodore  Tilton 
of  the  New  York  Independent,  spent  some  weeks  recently  in  this  city. 
His  letter  published  in  thai!  paper  embraced,  with  many  serious  state 
ments,  a  little  jocose  satire,  a  part  of  which  was  the  statement  that  the 
mantle  of  the  late  Winter  Davis  had  fallen  upon  the  member  from  New 
York.  The  gentleman  took  it  seriously,  and  it  has  given  his  strut  ad 
ditional  pomposity.  The  resemblance  is  great.  It  is  striking,  Hyperion 
to  a  Satyr,  Thersites  to  Hercules,  mud  to  marble,  dunghill  to  diamond, 
a  singed  cat  to  a  Bengal  tiger,  a  whining  puppy  to  a  roaring  lion. 
Shade  of  the  mighty  Davis,  forgive  the  almost  profanation  of  that 
jocose  satire. ' ' 

I  shall  not  undertake  to  trace  the  effect  this 
notable  contention,  known  as  the  Conkling  and  Blaine- 
Fry  affair,  had  upon  the  political  lives  of  Mr.  Elaine 
and  Mr.  Conkling. 

The  issue  squarely  joined  between  them  was  soon 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  25 

converted  by  the  House  and  its  Committee  of  Investi 
gation  into  a  trial  of  ine  for  alleged  breach  of  privi 
lege  in  a  letter  to  one  of  the  contestants.  The  failure 
of  the  Committee  to  investigate  the  issue  between  Mr. 
Conkling  and  Mr.  Elaine,  no  doubt  was  satisfactory  at 
the  time  to  the  former,  otherwise  he  would  have  called 
for  investigation  when  he  was  before  the  Committee 
with  power  to  do  so.  Although  the  Committee  did 
not  touch  that  point,  the  correctness  of  Mr.  Elaine's 
assertion  was  sustained  by  the  facts  read  to  the 
House  from  my  letter,  and  Mr.  Elaine  was  left  victor 
in  the  public  judgment  upon  the  issue  between  him 
and  Mr.  Conkling,  and  so  remained.  Hence,  plainly 
enough,  there  has  been  no  special  necessity  on  Mr. 
Elaine's  own  account  for  him  to  speak  upon  the  sub 
ject.  Mr.  Conkling,  notwithstanding  the  verdict  he  se 
cured  against  me  for  the  proof  I  furnished  to  Mr.  Elaine, 
directly  or  through  his  friends,  took  the  defensive. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THE  COMMITTEE  AND  ITS  PROCEEDINGS. 

The  House,  without  charging  that  a  breach  of 
privilege  had  been  committed  either  by  the  writing  or 
reading  of  my  letter  to  Mr.  Elaine,  exercised  jurisdic 
tion  in  the  matters  at  issue  between  Mr.  Conkling 
and  me,  and 

Resolved,  That  a  select  Committee  of  five  members  of  this  House 
be  appointed  to  investigate  the  statements  and  charges  made  by  Hon. 
Eoscoe  Conkling  in  his  place  last  week  against  Provost  Marshal -Gen 
eral  Fry  and  his  bureau ;  whether  any  frauds  have  been  perpetrated  in 
his  office  in  connection  with  the  recruiting  service  ;  also  to  examine 
into  the  statements  made  by  Gen.  Fry  in  his  communication  to  Hon. 
Mr.  Elaine,  read  in  the  House  this  day,  with  power  to  send  for  persons 
and  papers. 

The  Speaker  appointed  the  following  named  members  to  constitute 
said  Committee  : 

Mr.  Samuel  Shellabarger,  of  Ohio  ;  Mr.  William  Windom,  of 
Minnesota  ;  Mr.  Benjamin  M.  Boyer,  of  Pennsylvania  ;  Mr.  Burton  C. 
Cook,  of  Illinois  ;  Mr.  Samuel  L.  Warner,  of  Connecticut. 

Never  in  the  history  of  the  Government  has  Con 
gress,  the  supreme  power,  been  more  aggressive  or 
more  sensitive  concerning  its  privileges  than  when  this 
Committee  was  appointed,  investigated  and  reported. 
For  four  years  the  fate  of  the  nation  had  been  at  stake 
upon  the  sword,  and  though  Congress  had  done  its 
duty  promptly,  faithfully  and  efficiently,  its  part  had 
been  thrown  into  the  shade  by  the  brilliancy  and  im 
portance  of  military  operations.  But  the  military  sun 
had  set,  and  the  civil  power  had  emerged  from  the 
shade  in  full  splendor.  The  business  of  getting  armies 
was  replaced  by  getting  rid  of  them.  The  soldier's 

20 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  Z  i 

day  had  passed,  and  the  Congressmen's  day  was  shin 
ing.  If  I  may  be  permitted  for  a  historical  purpose 
to  connect  a  great  matter  with  a  small  one,  I  may  add 
that  the  same  House  (39th  Congress)  which  censured 
me  in  its  first  session,  unsuccessfully  impeached  the 
President  of  the  United  States  during  its  second  ses 
sion.  The  members  of  the  investigating  Committee, 
Mr.  Conkling,  my  opponent,  and  Mr.  Hotchkiss,  his 
counsel,  all  members  of  that  House,  were  drawn  to 
gether  by  their  daily  duties,  ties  and  associations,  and 
by  common  interest,  which  at  that  period  was  particu 
larly  strong. 

I,  on  the  other  hand,  was  not  only  a  mere  soldier, 
one  of  the  class  whose  day  was  over,  but  was  the  head 
of  an  obnoxious  military  bureau.  I  allege  no  corrup 
tion  or  unfair  purpose,  but  assume  merely  that  the 
ordinary  traits  of  human  nature  were  at  work.  It 
was  in  the  case  that  I  was  at  disadvantage.  The  Com 
mittee  probably  started  without  any  plan  of  proceed 
ing  or  any  definite  conception  of  the  nature,  scope  or 
duration  of  the  investigation.  The  first  notice  I  re 
ceived  from  the  Committee  was  on  the  2d  of  May.  I 
at  once  replied  to  the  Chairman  as  follows: 

' '  Yours  of  yesterday  was  received  this  morning,  saying  there  will 
be  a  meeting,  at  10  this  morning,  upon  the  matter  of  charges 
between  Mr.  Conkling  and  myself,  at  which  meeting  you  invite  me  to 
make  any  statement  I  may  desire  as  to  the  kind  and  extent  of  the  evi 
dence  I  may  be  inclined  to  have  submitted,  and  the  number  and  resi 
dence  of  the  witnesses. 

"In  reply,  I  would  respectfully  state,  after  knowing  the  pro 
gramme  of  the  Committee,  or  the  charges  made  by  and  against  me, 
which  the  Committee  desire  evidence  upon,  I  will  be  able  to  make  a 
more  specific  statement  on  the  subject. 

' '  I  should,  however,  like  to  know,  at  the  initial  point  of  the  in- 


28  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

vestigation  (which  I  am  heartily  glad  has  been  ordered) ,  whether  it  is 
the  design  of  your  honorable  Committee  to  extend  their  inquiries  into 
the  frauds  that  have  been  perpetrated  on  my  Bureau  by  parties  having 
no  official  connection  therewith;  or  whether  it  is  designed  simply  to 
inquire  into  alleged  frauds,  or  malpractices,  on  the  part  of  myself,  or 
any  one  officially  connected  with  me,  or  whether  both  these  subjects 
are  to  be  investigated.  The  distinction  between  frauds  on  my  Bureau, 
and  frauds  in  it,  is  of  course  an  important  one.  If  the  scope  of  your  in 
quiry  shall  embrace  the  former  class,  I  shall  be  able  to  afford  you  a 
vast  amount  of  information  from  the  files  of  this  office,  indicating  the 
extent  to  which  these  fraudulent  practices  were  carried  on,  and  the 
measures  pursued  by  this  Bureau  to  detect,  expo  e  and  punish  them. 

"  In  regard  to  the  latter  class  of  offenses,  I  shall  be  equally  ready 
to  tender  you  all  personal  and  official  information  in  my  possession, 
giving  the  names,  the  offenses,  and  the  punishments  of  those  officers 
and  employees  of  the  bureau  who  were  found  to  be  corrupt. 

"  It  is  my  earnest  desire  to  contribute  in  every  possible  way  to  the 
thoroughness  and  impartiality  of  the  investigation. ' ' 

I  received  no  answer  to  this  letter.  What  effect, 
if  any,  it  had  upon  the  Committee  I  never  heard,  but 
there  was  no  meeting  on  May  3,  and  none  until 
May  7,  when,  as  the  record  of  the  Committee  shows, 
there  were  present  all  the  members  and  also  u  Honor 
able  Roscoe  Conkling,  and  Honorable  Giles  W.  Hotch- 
kiss,  Counsel,  and  Major  General  James  B.  Fry,  and 
Brig.  General  N.  L.  Jeffries,  Counsel."  There  is  nothing 
in  the  record,  nor  within  my  knowledge,  to  show  that 
the  Committee  was  sworn,  and  as  appears  by  the  rec 
ord  it  was  only  at  the  first  meeting  (May  7)  and  the 
last  (June  26)  which  was  to  hear  argument  of  counsel, 
that  all  the  members  of  the  Committee  were  present. 
Often  not  more  than  two  were  present,  sometimes  only 
one,  the  members  apparently  taking  turns  in  attend 
ing,  so  that  neither  the  Committee  nor  any  member 
heard  all  the  testimony.  At  the  first  meeting  (May 
7)  the  record  says,  "  ordered  that  the  Committee  pro- 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  29 

ceed  first  to  the  latter  branch  of  investigation  directed 
by  the  resolution  of  the  House,  viz. :  "  u  To  examine 
into  the  statements  made  by  General  Fry  in  his  commu 
nication  to  Mr.  Elaine,  read  in  the  House  this  (April 
30)."  This  action  of  the  Committee  reversed  the  order 
of  proceeding  prescribed  by  the  House,  and  the  natural 
order  of  business. 

In  my  letter  to  the  Committee  of  May  3, 1  assumed 
that  the  affairs  of  my  bureau  were  to  be  investigated, 
and  asked  for  the  charges,  but  I  received  no  answer 
and  heard  nothing  upon  the  subject,  until  the  Com 
mittee  announced  its  order  just  cited,  that  it  would 
"  proceed  first "  to  examine  the  statements  made  by 
me  against  Mr.  Conkling,  and  it  may  be  stated  here 
that  having  done  that  (in  an  imperfect  way  as  I  main 
tained)  and  vindicated  Mr.  Conkling,  it  never  took  up 
the  other  branch  of  the  subject.  I  did  not  make  the 
issue,  or  invite  it.  It  originated  in  Mr.  Conkling's 
speech  in  the  House  on  the  24th  April,  assailing  my 
personal  and  official  character.  As  I  was  the  head  of 
an  important  bureau  of  the  Government,  and  entrusted 
with  great  powers  and  onerous  duties,  the  issue,  as 
it  affected  the  integrity  of  that  part  of  the  public 
service  confided  to  me,  was  of  great  public  importance, 
and  of  importance  to  me,  personally.  The  Committee, 
it  seems  to  me,  was  bound,  if  it  believed  in  any  degree 
the  statements  of  Mr.  Conkling  concerning  the  Pro 
vost  Marshal-General's  bureau,  to  make  a  finding 
upon  that  subject.  My  allegations  against  Mr.  Conk 
ling  were  manifestly  of  secondary  public  importance, 
and  my  letter  to  Mr.  Elaine  was  only  an  incident  in  a 
contention  which  I  did  not  begin,  and  for  which  I  was 


30  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

not  responsible.  Nor  would  the  regular  order  of  pro 
ceeding  prescribed  by  the  House  have  been  unjust  to 
Mr.  Conkling.  If,  pursuing  that  order,  the  investiga 
tion  should  show  that  I  had  been  an  accomplice  in  the 
frauds  perpetrated  upon  the  Government  through  my 
bureau,  certainly  nothing  I  had  said  about  Mr.  Conk- 
ling  could  have  injured  him,  and  no  better  method  of 
vindicating  him  could  have  been  devised  than  to  let 
him  prove  the  frauds  he  alleged,  and  establish  the 
fact  that  I,  his  accuser,  was  a  guilty  party.  But  the 
Committee  reversed  the  natural  and  prescribed  order 
of  proceedings. 

After  the  order  of  proceedings  had  been  read 
at  the  first  meeting  (May  7),  the  Chairman  laid  my 
letter  before  the  Committee,  and  it  was  read.  Ignorant 
as  I  was  of  the  plan  and  scope  of  the  proposed  inves 
tigation,  I  took  with  me  to  this  meeting  certain  letters 
and  papers  from  the  files  of  the  War  Department, 
having  connected  them  together  in  a  narrative  form, 
which  I  wanted  to  submit  as  proofs  of  the  truth  of 
what  I  had  said  in  my  letter  to  Mr.  Elaine,  and  I 
asked  that  the  document  might  be  read.  The  record 
shows  that  "  Mr.  Conkling  objected  to  any  statement  of 
General  Fry  being  read,  desired  whatever  testimony  he 
adduced  to  be  under  the  sanction  of  an  oath,  and  that  he 
[General  Fry]  should  be  subject  to  cross-examination  as 
other  witnesses."  The  Committee  sustained  the  ob 
jection,  and  directed  that  each  paper  as  presented 
"  should  be  first  shown  to  Mr.  Conkling  and  his  coun 
sel,  if  they  desired,  before  being  read."  "  General  Fry 
was  then  duly  sworn  by  the  Chairman."  This  action 
of  Mr.  Conkling  and  the  Committee  gave  a  technical 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  31 

legal  form  to  the  proceedings,  and  the  investigation 
was  conducted  according  to  sharp  rules  of  evidence, 
with  which  Mr.  Conkling  and  his  counsel,  an  able 
brother  Congressman,  Mr.  Hotchkiss,  were  well  ac 
quainted.  My  assistant  General  Jeff  ries,  an  able  lawyer, 
who  acted  as  my  counsel,  was  not  overmatched,  but 
as  the  case  proceeded  he  became  overworked,  and  on 
the  29th  of  May,  I  presented  A.  G.  Riddle,  Esq.,  as 
additional  counsel,  and  the  case  was  thenceforth  left  in 
my  counsel's  hands. 

The  proceedings  continued  through  May,  and 
until  late  in  June.  The  weather  was  hot,  the  adjourn 
ment  of  Congress  was  at  hand,  and  the  Committee  ap 
peared  to  be  heartily  sick  of  its  work.  At  its  meeting 
on  the  19th  of  June,  testimony  was  taken  as  usual, 
and  there  was  more  to  come,  but  at  the  close  of  the 
session,  the  Committee  adjourned  to  meet  on  call  of 
the  Chairman,  and  that  was  the  end  of  the  investigation, 
the  next  meeting  being  on  the  26th  of  June  to  hear 
argument  of  counsel.  I  desired  the  Committee  to  per 
mit  written  arguments,  and  to  wait  for  them,  but  that 
was  declined,  and  it  was  decided  that  oral  pleas  should 
be  made  on  the  evening  of  June  26th.  When  this  fact 
came  to  my  knowledge  on  the  25th  of  June,  the  fol 
lowing  review  or  brief  of  the  case  in  the  form  of  a 
letter  to  my  counsel  was  prepared : 

A.  G.  RIDDLE,  ATTORNEY,  ETC. 

Dear  Sir : — As  you  well  know,  from  the  time  the  Congressional 
Investigation  into  the  charges  brought  by  myself  against  Hon.  Roscoe 
Conkling  took  the  form  of  rigid  legal  proceedings,  I  have  left  the  con 
duct  of  the  matter  in  the  hands  of  yourself  and  my  assistant  (General 
Jeffries),  as  my  counsellors  and  advisers.  I  have  been  present  very 
little  during  the  protracted  sessions  in  which  this  case  has  been  consid- 


32  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

ered ;  content  to  leave  it,  as  presented  by  you,  to  the  just  judgment  of 
the  honorable  members  composing  the  Committee.  I  deem  it  proper, 
however,  on  the  eve  of  closing  that  branch  of  the  case  which  directly 
affects  Mr.  Conkling,  to  make  a  brief  review  of  it,  as  some  aid  to  you 
in  the  task  of  summing  it  up  before  the  Committee.  Had  the  Commit 
tee  been  pleased  to  allow  written  pleas,  I  should  have  been  glad  to  state 
my  views  in  extenso ;  but,  as  this  has  been  refused,  and  as  the  oral  plea 
has  to  be  made  to-morrow,  I  am  compelled  to  make  a  rapid  and  con 
densed  resume  of  the  points  of  the  case  in  a  note  to  you, — hoping  that, 
however  hastily  thrown  off,  it  may  aid  you  somewhat  in  the  elaborate 
review  of  the  testimony  which  it  will  be  your  duty  to  make  as  my 
counsel.  I  am  compelled  to  do  this  under  the  disadvantage  of  not 
knowing  the  precise  terms  of  the  testimony  adduced  before  the  com 
mittee,  and  relying  on  the  running  notes  kept  by  General  Jeffries 
during  the  examination  of  the  witnesses.  I  formally  applied  to  the 
Committee  for  a  copy  of  the  record,  the  testimony  having  been  phono- 
graphically  reported,  and  offered  to  pay  the  expense  of  transcribing ; 
but  this  was  refused.  The  reason  for  refusing  is  unknown  to  me,  and 
I  do  not  mention  it  now  as  a  complaint,  but  simply  to  explain  the  disa 
bility  under  which  I  labor  in  the  review  which  I  am  now  hurriedly 
undertaking. 

The  origin  of  the  difficulty  which  produced  this  investigation,  as 
you  will  remember,  was  a  speech  made  by  Mr.  Conkling  in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  on  the  25th  of  April,  assailing  my  character  person 
ally  and  officially.  The  occasion  which  called  forth  the  attack  was  the 
report  by  the  Military  Committee  of  a  section  of  the  Army  Bill  continu 
ing  the  Provost  Marshal-General's  bureau  as  a  part  of  the  military 
peace  establishment.  Mr.  Conkling's  assault,  unprovoked  and  uncalled 
for,  was  repelled  with  warmth  by  a  member  of  the  Military  Committee, 
Mr.  Elaine,  of  Maine,  who  very  generously  defended  my  character. 
The  assault  was  so  virulent  in  its  tone  that  I  felt  compelled  to  notice  it, 
and  I  accordingly  addressed  a  letter  to  Mr.  Elaine,  thanking  him  for 
his  timely  and  effective  defense,  and  reviewing,  with  some  plainness  of 
speech,  the  personal  and  official  relations  between  Mr.  Conkling  and 
myself.  This  letter  was  a  private  one,  though  I  designed  to  have  it 
made  public  in  some  form.  It  was  deemed  proper  by  Mr.  Blaine,  how 
ever,  to  cause  the  letter  to  be  read  in  the  House,  as  a  part  of  a  speech 
he  made  on  the  30th  of  April,  in  vindication  of  himself  against  the 
charge  made  by  Mr.  Conkling,  in  the  first  debate  between  them,  of  his 
having  stated  what  was  false.  It  was  not  in  my  power  to  have  the 
letter  read  in  the  House — it  was  originally  prepared  with  no  such  in 
tention — and  I  presume  the  honorable  member  who  procured  its  read 
ing  there  has  no  desire  to  evade  any  of  the  responsibility  properly  per- 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


33 


taining  to  the  act.  In  that  letter  I  made  the  charges  which  have,  since 
its  reading  in  the  House,  been  the  subject  of  investigation, — an  investi 
gation  called  for  by  Mr.  Conkling,  and  neither  sought  for  nor  avoided 
by  me.  I  did  not  consider  my  personal  or  official  reputation  so  dam 
aged  by  anything  Mr.  Conkling  could  say  as  to  demand  or  need  an 
investigation  by  Congress  or  any  other  branch  of  the  Government. 
Mr.  Conkling  thought  differently  of  the  case,  however,  from  his  stand 
point  ;  and,  at  his  earnest  and  urgent  request,  a  Committee  of  Investi 
gation  was  granted  by  the  House,  and  five  honorable  gentlemen  ap 
pointed  to  conduct  it. 

At  the  first  meeting  of  the  Committee,  I  submitted  a  statement,  in 
writing,  designed  to  make  the  investigation  as  brief,  compact,  and 
direct  as  possible ;  but  Mr.  Conkling  objected,  and  insisted  on  having 
everything  conducted  by  sharp  rules  of  evidence,  taking  advantage  of 
every  turn,  and  proceeding  in  a  manner  which  rendered  legal  advice 
necessary  to  me.  I  accordingly  solicited  your  aid,  since  which  time, 
as  already  remarked,  I  have  left  the  case  to  yourself  and  General  Jeffries. 

The  charges  brought  by  me  against  Mr.  Conkling  were  substan 
tially  three  ;  though  some  subordinate  and  inferential  ones  might  be  in 
cluded  in  my  letter. 

I.  The  first  was,  that,  while  a  member  of  Congress,  he  had  taken 
the  position  of  Judge  Advocate  of  a  General  Court  Martial,  performed 
the  duties  thereof,  and  received  pay  ($3,000)  for  the  same.  I  may  re 
mark  here  that  the  $3,000,  as  appears  in  evidence,  was  besides  his  ex 
penses,  he  having  been  paid  $280  in  addition,  under  that  head.  It  is 
shown  in  evidence  that  by  an  official  order  in  due  form  from  the  Secre 
tary  of  War,  he  was  appointed  Judge  Advocate  of  the  Court ;  he  was 
duly  sworn  in  as  such ;  he  performed  all  the  duties  of  the  office ;  he 
certified  the  proceedings ;  he  certified  the  vouchers  on  which  the  ex 
penses  of  witnesses  were  paid  from  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States ; 
he  summoned  and  swore  the  witnesses ;  and,  in  short,  did  everything 
which  a  Judge  Advocate  could  do  by  virtue  of  his  office.  When  the 
Court  was  cleared  for  deliberation  and  all  counsel  excluded,  he  remained 
as  official  adviser  of  the  Court.  Finally,  by  his  official  management  as 
Judge  Advocate,  the  Court  was  commenced,  and,  having  been  sworn  as 
such,  the  trial  was  had,  conviction  wrought,  the  sentence  executed. 
The  duties  were  performed  between  April  3  and  November  9,  1865  ; 
and,  at  the  latter  date,  he  was  paid  for  his  services  $3  000,  besides  ex 
penses,  as  already  stated.  Three  weeks  later,  on  the  first  Monday  in 
December.  1865,  Mr.  Conkling  was  admitted  to  his  seat  in  Congress,  for 
the  term  beginning  March  4,  1865,  and  drew  his  pay,  at  the  rate  of 
$3,000  a  year,  exclusive  of  mileage,  stretching  back  to  March  4,  and 
covering  the  whole  time  he  was  employed  and  paid  as  Judge  Advocate. 


34  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

All  this  is  in  evidence  of  the  most  ample  and  cumulative  character ; 
and,  therefore,  my  first  charge  against  him  is  fully  sustained.  I  said  in 
my  letter,  that  I  left  others  to  decide  whether  his  taking  pay  for  two 
offices  at  the  same  time  was  a  violation  of  the  letter  or  the  spirit  of  the 
Constitution.  That  decision  rests  primarily  with  the  Committee  and 
ultimately  with  the  representative  body  of  which  Mr.  Conkling  is  a 
member.  But  I  trust  you  will  not  fail  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Com 
mittee  to  the  numerous  precedents  applicable  to  the  case, — precedents 
which  have  been  growing  in  number  and  strength  from  the  foundation 
of  the  Government,  and  all  of  them  adverse  to  Mr.  Conkling's  right  to 
take  pay  for  the  two  offices,  or  for  discharging  the  duties  of  the  two 
for  the  same  period  of  time. 

Mr.  Conkling,  as  you  will  remember,  introduced  the  Hon.  Secre 
tary  of  War  to  prove  that  he  had  a  right  to  be  employed  as  Judge  Ad 
vocate,  and  to  discharge  the  duties  and  draw  the  pay.  I  hope  you  will 
not  dispute  this.  Indeed,  Mr.  Conkling  might  have  taken  this  point  for 
granted ;  for  the  question  at  issue  seems  to  be,  not  whether  Mr.  Conk 
ling  had  the  right  to  take  pay  for  the  duties  of  Judge  Advocate,  but 
whether  he  had  the  right  afterwards  to  take  pay  for  the  same  period  of 
time  as  a  Member  of  Congress. 

The  House  of  Representatives  decided,'  during  the  Thirty-eighth 
Congress,  that  Benjamin  F.  Loan  and  Green  Clay  Smith,  having  been 
paid  as  Brigadier  Generals  after  March  4,  when  their-  Congressional 
term  began,  could  not  be  paid  for  the  same  time  as  Representatives. 
The  logic  is  not  apparent  that  would  deny  the  pay  to  a  Brigadier  Gen 
eral  and  accord  it  to  a  Judge  Advocate,  or  the  person  discharging  the 
duties  of  one. 

Since  Mr.  Conkling  has  sought  to  justify  himself  in  accepting  double 
pay  for  the  same  time,  I  trust  you  will  bring  to  the  attention  of  the  Com 
mittee  the  very  many  points  of  law  bearing  on  the  case, — the  numerous 
statutes  that  forbid  it, — the  great  public  policy  that  discountenances  it, 
— and  the  opinion  of  many  eminent  men,  especially  Attorney- General 
Wirt,  in  condemnation  and  denunciation  of  it.  I  but  suggest  these 
points,  leaving  your  more  fruitful  knowledge  of  the  law  to  give  them 
appropriate  illustration  and  enforcement. 

Mr.  Conkling  showed  extreme  sensitiveness  at  my  having  referred, 
in  a  tone  of  irony,  to  the  $3,000  as  a  "modest  fee  "  for  the*  services  he 
performed  as  Judge  Advocate.  To  justify  himself,  he  invoked  the  testi 
mony  of  such  eminent  counsellors  as  Edwin  M.  Stariton  and  Reverdy 
Johnson  as  to  the  reasonableness  of  the  charge,  and  he  offered  to  bring 
Caleb  Gushing  and  Charles  O'Connor  to  prove  the  same.  It  was  freely 
admitted  that  the  fee  would  be,  at  any  time,  very  reasonable  and  very 
moderate  for  any  one  of  the  distinguished  counsel  named.  Gentlemen 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  Ot> 

of  their  great  professional  eminence  are  justly  expected  to  receive  large 
fees  for  their  time  and  their  counsel,  and  it  is  certainly  an  amusing,  if 
not  suggestive,  illustration  of  Mr.  Conkling's  weakness,  to  see  him  coolly 
rate  himself  as  the  professional  peer  of  the  four  eminent  jurists  named. 
II.  The  second  charge  against  Mr.  Conkling  contained  in  my  letter 
was,  that  he  was  as  zealous  in  "  preventing  prosecutions  at  Utica  as  he 
was  in  making  them  at  Elmira,"  and  that  "I  wanted  exposure  at  both 
places,  while  he  wanted  concealment  at  one. ' ' 

In  proof  of  this  you  will  find  a  connected  and,  I  think,  irrefragable 
series  of  facts  in  the  official  papers  sent  by  me  to  the  Committee,  many 
of  which,  I  learn,  Mr.  Conkling  strove  to  have  excluded  from  the  record, 
and  I  am  not  specifically  advised  as  to  the  extent  of  his  success  in  that 
effort.  My  suggestions  to  you  are  on  the  basis  that  those  official  papers 
are  the  most  legitimate  and  pertinent  testimony,  necessarily  reliable  and 
beyond  the  charge  or  suspicion  or  possibility  of  being  made  up,  as  oral 
testimony  may  be,  for  the  occasion. 

In  Mr  .Conkling's  original  letter  of  appointment,  dated  April  3, 
issued  by  order  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  he  was  authorized  "  to  investi 
gate  ALL  CASES  of  fraud  in  the  Provost  Marshal's  Department  of  the 
Western  Division  of  New  York,  and  all  misdemeanors  connected  with 
recruiting."  His  authority  was,  therefore,  plenary,  positively  without 
limit,  except  by  the  geographical  bounds  of  the  Western  Division  of 
New  York.  Utica  was  included  in  this  Division,  and  the  very  day  Mr. 
Conkling  was  appointed,  his  attention  was  directed  to  the  alleged  mis 
demeanors  on  the  part  of  the  Enrolment  Board  of  the  Utica  District,  in 
consequence  of  which  the  Board  had  been  suspended  from  duty  a  few 
weeks  before.  It  is  in  evidence  that  Mr.  Conkling  was  made  acquainted 
with  the  report  of  Major  Luddington  of  an  inspection  of  that  office, 
which  report  cited :  "I  respectfully  recommend  that  every  member  of 
the  Board  of  Enrolment  of  the  Twenty-first  District  of  New  York  be 
dismissed  the  service,  and  that  the  money  in  possession  of  Captain 
Crandall  (Provost  Marshal)  be  seized."  Also,  with  the  report  of  the 
commander  of  the  eub- rendezvous  at  Auburn,  in  which  that  officer,  in 
speaking  of  the  recruiting  service  in  the  Twenty-first  District  of  New 
York,  says: — "  Men  rotten  with  venereal  disease,  totally  unfit  for  any 
duty,  are  passed  by  the  surgeon  and  sent  here  for  duty.  Nine- tenths  of 
the  recruits  sent  here  from  that  office,  are  the  most  worthless  set  of 
scoundrels  you  ever  put  your  eyes  upon."  Also,  with  the  protest  of 
Colonel  N.  G.  Axtell,  192d  Regiment  N.  Y,  Volunteers,  against  the 
receipt  of  men  recruited  at  Utica,  in  which  he  says  that  the  recruits 
mustered  at  Utica  "  are,  without  doubt,  bounty- jumpers  and  should  not 
have  been  mustered  by  any  intelligent  mustering  officer."  This  evi-r 
dence  placed  in  the  hands  of  Mr.  Conkliog  would,  it  is  to  be  supposed, 


36  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

have  enabled  him  to  prosecute  to  a  speedy  termination  the  charges 
made  against  the  Utica  office,  he  having  been  invested  with  full  power 
touching  the  investigation  of  frauds  and  misdemeanors  in  that  and 
every  other  district  in  the  Western  Division  of  New  York.  On  the  day 
of  his  appointment,  April  3,  after  "  carefully  reading"  all  this  evidence, 
Mr.  Conkling  filed  in  the  War  Department  a  letter,  as  follows : 

"WAR  DEPARTMENT, 
"  WASHINGTON  CITY,  April  3,  1865. 

"Having  been  authorized  and  requested  by  the  Secretary  of  War  to  examine 
certain  transactions  in  the  Bureau  of  the  Provost  Marshal-General,  relating  to  the 
Western  Division  of  the  State  of  New  York,  I  have  the  honor  to  state  that  I  have 
carefully  read  all  the  papers  furnished  me  as  on  file,  touching  the  Provost  Marshal 
of  the  Twenty-first  District,  and,  having  done  so,  from  the  contents  of  said  papers, 
as  well  as  from  my  knowledge  of  the  facts,  and  of  the  men  connected  with  them,  I 
advise  and  recommend  that  the  order  suspending  Captain  Peter  B.  Crandall  and  the 
other  members  of  the  Enrolling  Board  be  revoked, aud  that  said  Board  be  reinstated. 

(Signed)  "  ROSCOE  CONKLING." 

Mr.  Conkling,  by  taking  cognizance  of  the  Ucica  case,  and  giving 
it  an  official  examination  and  making  an  official  recommendation  in 
relation  thereto,  is  certainly  estopped  from  alleging,  as  he  has  since  at 
tempted,  that  he  had  no  jurisdiction  of  the  case.  Not  only  was  his 
authority  ample  and  plenary  in  his  original  appointment, — which  was 
never  revoked,  annulled,  or  in  any  way  limited,  while  he  held  the  posi 
tion, — but  he  actually  took  official  cognizance  of  the  case  and  exer 
cised  authority  over  it.  His  recommendation  to  restore  Captain  Crandall 
was  not  approved,  and  he  remained  suspended  ;  and  Mr.  Conkling,  with 
all  these  facts  before  him,  does  not  pretend  that  he  ever  attempted  to  do 
anything  towards  initiating  proceedings  against  the  Utica  officials  who 
were  resting  under  the  charges  heretofore  enumerated.  The  case  was 
wholly  under  his  cognizance,  he,  and  he  alone,  under  the  circumstances, 
could  prosecute  or  prevent  prosecution,  and  he  did  not  prosecute ;  hence 
my  charge,  that  he  was  as  zealous  in  preventing  prosecutions  "  at  Utica 
as  he  was  in  making  them  at  Elmira,"  and  that  "  I  wanted  exposure 
at  both  places,  while  he  wanted  concealment  at  one. ' '  I  submit  that 
the  official  papers  sustain  my  allegation.  If  he  did  not  wish  to  prevent 
prosecutions  at  Utica,  why  did  he  not  make  them  ?  That  is  for  him  to 
show.  I  have  shown  that  he  was  amply  empowered  to  prosecute,  that 
the  Utica  case  was  especially  and  emphatically  brought  to  his  notice, 
and  that  he  refused  or  failed  to  institute  prosecution.  Mr.  Conkling's 
explanation,  in  his  speech  of  April  30,  reported  in  the  Globe  (which  I 
understand  is  in  evidence),  was  that  the  Elmira  case  absorbed  so  much 
of  his  time  that,  when  it  was  through,  he  "  declined  to  go  further" 
(not  for  want  of  authority,  but  because  he  thought  his  poor  share  was 
done),  and  that  these  long  investigations  were  interfering  with  his 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY  CONTROVERSY. 


37 


private  business ;  but  not  being  entirely  satisfied  with  this  apology,  he 
afterwards,  before  the  Committee,  took  the  ground  that  his  appointment 
was  only  to  prosecute  the  Haddock  case  at  Elmira,  in  the  face  of  the 
fact  that  the  very  wording  of  his  appointment  authorized  him  to  "in 
vestigate  all  cases  of  frauds  in  the  Provost  Marshal's  Department  of 
Western  New  York, ' '  and  in  the  face  of  the  additional  fact  that  he 
actually  did  take  cognizance  of  the  Utica  case  and  founded  official  recom 
mendations  thereon. 

In  support  of  his  last  taken  position,  that  he  was  only  authorized  to 
prosecute  the  Haddock  case  at  Elmira,  he  introduced  Secretary  Stanton 
and  the  late  Assistant  Secretary  Dana.  Both  these  gentlemen,  I  be 
lieve,  stated  that  it  was  their  understanding  that  Mr.  Conkling  was 
only  to  prosecute  the  case  of  Major  Haddock.  Their  recollections — 
especially  that  of  Secretary  Stanton — were  not  distinct  or  specific  on 
the  point;  but  they  spoke  rather  of  their  impressions  being  that  way. 
Such  an  impression  would  not  be  at  all  extraordinary  under  the  circum 
stances,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Mr.  Conkling  did  confine  his  efforts 
very  zealously  to  the  Elmira  case ;  that  he  failed  to  prosecute  the  al 
leged  frauds  at  Utica  and  elsewhere  in  his  Division.  Indeed,  the  Elmira 
case  was  so  magnified  and  placed  in  such  prominence  by  Mr.  Conkling, 
that  the  Secretary  of  War,  who  could  not  be  expected  to  remember  the 
details  of  official  papers  in  all  the  bureau,  would  very  naturally  come 
to  have  the  impression  that  the  prosecution  of  Haddock  was  the  sole 
purpose  of  Mr.  Conkling's  appointment.  And  I  submit  that  the  crea 
tion  of  this  impression  is  but  a  striking  proof,  in  a  striking  form,  of  how 
completely  Mr.  Conkling  succeeded  in  making  prosecutions  at  Elmira 
and  preventing  them  at  Utica. 

In  this  hurried  glance  at  the  facts  sustaining  my  second  charge,  I 
am  compelled  to  omit  many  points  of  force  and  pertinence.  You  will 
doubtless  know  where  to  refer  to  them  in  the  official  papers  submitted ; 
and  I  beg  that  you  will  amplify  them  in  the  manner  that  best  com 
mends  itself  to  your  judgment.  Upon  a  full  review  of  all  the  facts,  I 
think  my  charge  is  sustained  by  evidence  of  the  most  comprehensive 
and  incontrovertible  character.  Mr.  Conkling's  original  cognizance  of 
the  Utica  case ;  his  admitted  knowledge  of  the  charges  against  the  En 
rolment  Board ;  his  failure  to  do  anything  in  the  way  of  prosecution 
at  that  point ;  his  putting  forward  one  excuse  for  this  failure  in  his 
speech  in  the  House,  and  his  assuming  an  entirely  different  ground  be 
fore  the  Committee,  are  suggestive  points,  which  you  will  readily  group 
together  and  expose. 

III.  The  third  and  only  remaining  charge  contained  in  my  letter 
was,  that  there  had  been  quarrels  between  Mr.  Conkling  and  myself. 

I  do  not  propose  to  spend  much  time,  nor  do  I  wish  you  to  engross 


38  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

much  of  the  Committee's  attention  in  proving  that  to  be  true.  I  think 
it  will  be  admitted  that  the  state  of  feeling  between  Mr.  Conkiing  and 
myself  for  some  time  past  has  not  been  cordial;  and  that  the  Commit 
tee  will  hardly  desire  to  spend  time  in  searching  out  how  the  differ 
ences  began,  how  they  ripened  into  ill-feeling,  and  how  they  finally 
became  so  bitter  on4Mr.  Conkling's  part  as  to  lead  him  to  make  an  extraor 
dinary  assault  on  my  character  from  his  place  in  the  House  of  Repre 
sentatives.  I  believe  courts  are  justified  in  assuming  certain  conclu 
sions  without  asking  proof  in  detail;  and  I  think  one  of  the  safe 
conclusions  for  this  honorable  Committee  to  adopt  is,  that  since  I  in 
sisted  on  removing  one  of  the  provost  marshals  in  Mr.  Conkling's 
district,  on  charge  of  fraud,  and  suspending  another  for  alleged  mis 
demeanors,  and  refused  to  restore  either  on  his  application,  Mr.  Conk- 
ling  has  been  my  enemy,  intent  on  injuring  me,  and  wielding  his  power 
and  influence  to  that  end.  The  correspondence  in  evidence  is  presumed 
to  be  ample  on  this  point ;  how  far  it  may  be  necessary  to  refer  the 
Committee  to  that  correspondence,  I  leave  to  your  better  judgment. 

Having  disposed  of  the  three  principal  assertions  in  my  letter,  you 
may  deem  it  worth  while  to  glance  at  the  minor  and  incidental  charges, 
to  which  I  will  very  briefly  allude.  I  referred  to  a  rumor  that  Mr. 
Conkiing  had  received  $5,000  from  his  district  for  his  services  in  the 
Elmira  case ;  but  I  did  not  state  it  as  a  fact  within  my  knowledge.  I 
also  stated,  in  substance,  that  Mr.  Conkiing, — if  he  spoke  truly  against 
me  in  the  House  of  Representatives, — had  been  false  to  duty  as  Judge 
Advocate,  in  not  preferring  charges  against  me.  I  simply  repeat  my 
position  on  this  point.  My  charge  was  an  alternative  one,  involving  a 
matter  of  opinion  touching  official  duty,  rather  than  any  specific  fact, 
and  I  do  not  see  that  it  is  important  one  way  or  the  other.  So  far  as 
testimony  could  be  introduced,  bearing  on  such  a  point,  it  would  have 
to  be  made  up  largely  of  the  rules,  practices,  and  moral  convictions  of 
military  officers,  situated  as  Mr.  Conkiing  was  while  acting  as  Judge 
Advocate.  I  do  not  hesitate  to  express  the  opinion  that  the  vast  ma 
jority  of  officers  would  have  deemed  it  their  imperative  duty  to  file 
charges  against  me,  had  they  come  into  possession  of  the  facts  impeach 
ing  my  official  integrity,  as  Mr.  Conkiing  alleges  he  did.  And  with  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  Stanton  in  support  of  this  view  and  that  of  Mr.  Dana 
against  it,  I  leave  the  case. 

You  will  necessarily  refer  to  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Dana,  late  As 
sistant  Secretary  of  War.  I  wish  you  to  treat  it  as  irrelevant.  He 
took  issue  with  me  on  certain  statements  of  an  immaterial  nature ;  and, 
without  stopping  to  analyze  his  testimony,  I  simply  pass  it  over  as  not 
pertinent  to  the  inquiry  submitted  by  the  House  to  the  Committee.  I 
stated  that  Mr.  Dana  had  vested  Mr.  Conkiing,  without  Mr.  Stan  ton's 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  39 

sanction,  with  extraordinary  powers.  Mr.  Stanton  states  that  he  had 
given  Mr.  Dana  power  to  confer  all  necessary  authority  ;  but  did  not,  it 
seems,  until  afterwards,  learn  that  he  had  issued  authority  which 
"  enabled"  an  overhauling  of  telegrams  in  various  offices,  not  specifi 
cally  designated.  Mr.  Stanton  states  that  he  subsequently  approved 
the  action  taken,  and  would  have  given  more  authority  if  necessary ; 
but,  as  it  was  done  without  his  direct  knowledge,  I  was  certainly  sus 
tained  in  my  assertion,  that  it  was  without  his  "sanction."  Sanction 
is  not  to  be  presumed,  nor  is  it  properly  subsequent  in  its  nature.  It  is 
specific  and  precedent.  But  I  do  not  care  to  have  you  go  into  this  at 
any  length ;  for  Mr.  Dana  is  not  on  trial  before  this  Committee,  and 
the  charge  does  not  affect  Mr.  Conkling,  and  it  is  in  regard  to  Mr.  Conk- 
ling  that  the  Committee  is  now  conducting  the  investigation.  Neither  is 
it  necessary  to  spend  any  time  on  the  discrepancy  between  statements  in 
my  letter  and  those  made  by  Mr.  Dana,  touching  the  interview  I  had 
with  Mr.  Conkling.  The  affair  is  trivial  in  its  nature  and  unimportant 
in  its  bearings ;  and,  I  take  it,  the  Committee  will  not  wish  to  spend 
time  on  such  points.  I  state  one  thing  and  Mr.  Dana  a  different  thing, 
on  points  of  no  importance,  relating  to  an  interview  that  occurred  a 
year  and  a  half  ago.  Let  it  stand  in  that  way. 

I  have  thus  briefly  reviewed  the  charges  contained  in  my  letter.  Of 
the  principal  charges,  I  maintain  and  reassert,  not  only  the  substantial, 
but  literal,  correctness.  Touching  some  of  the  minor  and  inferential 
statements,  some  discrepancy  appears  in  the  testimony  ;  but  this  affects 
only  points  of  an  immaterial  nature,  all  of  which  I  might  readily  yield, 
without  injuriously  affecting  my  position.  And  I  remark,  in  closing 
this  branch  of  the  subject,  that  Mr.  Conkling  seems  not  so  much  to  have 
questioned  the  substantial  truth  of  my  letter,  as  to  have  challenged  my 
ability  to  prove  my  assertions  by  the  sharpest  technical  rules  of  evi 
dence,  which  he  favored  before  the  Committee  as  the  line  of  proceeding. 

Having  disposed  of  all  the  points  involved  in  my  letter,  I  desire 
you  to  treat  at  length  the  transaction  generally  known  as  the  Hobolcen 
case.  There  is  no  fact  connected  with  it  which  I  do  not  wish  set  forth 
fully  and  unreservedly.  Mr.  Conkling  has  introduced  that  case  with 
the  view  of  proving  that  I  had  been  actuated  by  bad  motives  towards 
him,  and  that  the  animus  of  my  letter  is  to  be  inferred  from  certain 
alleged  facts  in  connection  with  that  case,  which  he  has  industriously 
striven,  but  completely  failed,  to  establish.  I  do  not  wish  you  to  be 
satisfied  with  simply  repelling  what  Mr.  Conkling  has  sought  to  prove 
against  me  in  this  affair,  but  I  trust  you  will  turn  that  case,  as  it  should 
be  turned,  against  him,  showing  that  he  has  striven  to  wound  my 
reputation  by  testimony  of  a  disgracefully  unreliable  character,  and 
that  his  whole  superstructure  of  attempted  proof  rests  on  the  assertions 


40  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

of  one  Theodore  Allen,  who  is  proved,  not  only  by  all  the  circumstances 
of  the  case,  but  by  the  testimony  of  honorable  witnesses,  to  be  totally 
unworthy  of  credit.* 

The  full  history  of  the  Hoboken  affair  is  contained  in  the  official 
documents  submitted  to  the  Committee,  and  it  may  be  of  service  to  you 
for  me  to  recapitulate  the  points  of  the  case  as  concisely  and  yet  as 
clearly  as  I  can.  I  will  remark,  in  advance,  that  the  facts  of  this  case 
have  been  fully  passed  upon  by  my  superior  officers. 

In  the  winter  of  1864-5,  especially  during  the  months  of  January, 
February  and  March,  bounty- jumping  had  become  an  evil  of  such  mag 
nitude  as  to  threaten  the  efficiency  of  the  recruiting  system. 

Our  armies  stood  on  the  eve  of  what  was  felt  by  all  to  be  the  de 
cisive  campaign  of  the  great  civil  war,  and  it  was  of  the  first  importance 
that  our  ability  to  reinforce  them  should  not  be  impaired.  This  was  the 
point  of  great  solicitude  with  Mr.  Lincoln  and  the  Secretary  of  War,  as 
well  as  of  all  our  commanders  in  the  field. 

My  bureau  was  charged  with  the  weighty  task  of  responding  to 
this  demand,  and  I  found  that  the  system  of  lavish  local  bounties  was 
leading  to  widespread  corruption,  and  that  States,  counties,  cities  and 
towns  were  paying  enormous  sums  of  money  for  men,  and  the  army 
was  not  receiving  a  corresponding  increase  of  strength ;  that,  in  short, 
the  bounty- jumping  system  was  becoming  one  of  immense  magnitude 
and  perfect  organization,  and  that  some  special  and  extraordinary  efforts 
were  absolutely  necessary  to  check  it.  The  city  of  New  York,  and  the 
cities  and  towns  adjacent  thereto,  was  the  field  in  which  this  pernicious 
system  of  villainy  was  most  formidable,  and  here  it  was  determined  to 
make  the  first  attack  upon  it.  To  this  end,  I,  on  the  16th  day  of  January, 
1865,  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  which  was  promptly  ap 
proved,  asking  that  Colonel  L.  C.  Baker,  Chief  Detective  of  the  War 
Department,  be  put  under  my  control  for  the  purpose  of  exposing  and 
checking  the  evils  in  question,  and  that  the  expenses  of  this  undertak 
ing  be  paid  from  the  appropriation  in  my  charge.  Colonel  Baker,  with 
his  detective  force,  entered  at  once  on  this  duty  and  established  himself 
in  New  York  city  about  the  20th  of  January.  As  a  part  of  his  opera 
tions,  he,  with  his  subordinates,  devised  and  submitted  to  me  a  plan  for 
arresting  a  large  number  of  the  most  notorious  of  these  bounty-jumpers, 
by  which  it  was  hoped  to  cripple,  if  not  end,  the  corrupt  system,  by  the 
alarm  which  would  be  created  among  its  participants.  The  details  of 
the  plan  were  wholly  of  the  devising  of  Colonel  Baker  and  his  em 
ployees,  and  its  execution  was  entrusted  to  them,  aided  by  General 

*  This  subject  is  farther  treated  in  Chapter  V.,  Eeview  of  the  Com 
mittee's  Report. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


41 


Hinks,  acting  Assistant  Provost  Marshal-General,  in  New  York  city. 
The  scheme  had  my  approval,  and  I  issued,  or  procured  such  orders  as 
Colonel  Baker  deemed  essential  to  his  plan  of  operations.  It  was  de 
termined  by  him  to  open  a  recruiting  office  in  Hoboken,  New  Jersey, 
and  Brevet  Lieut. -Col.  Ilges,  of  the  regular  army,  then  on  recruiting 
duty  in  New  York  city,  was  detailed  by  the  Adjutant  General  of  the 
army  to  superintend  the  recruiting  station  in  Hoboken,  in  addition  to 
his  regular  duties  in  New  York  city  ;  and  Captain  Mills,  at  Newark,  the 
Provost  Marshal  of  the  Fifth  District  of  New  Jersey,  in  which  Hcboken 
is  situated,  was  directed  by  me  to  credit  such  enlistments  and  musters  as 
might  be  certified  to  him  by  Colonel  Ilges.  Colonel  Ilges,  without  any 
order  from  me  to  that  effect, — but  following,  I  presume,  the  practice  he 
had  been  pursuing  in  New  York  city,  under  the  rules  for  re  cruiting  the 
regular  army,  prescribed  by  another  bureau, — required  a  deposit  of 
$300  of  the  local  bounty  of  each  recruit,  as  a  guarantee  of  the  good  faith 
of  the  enlistment,  to  be  retained  until  the  recruit  was  receipted  for  at 
General  Rendezvous. 

Among  the  employees  whom  Colonel  Baker  called  to  his  aid,  in  pur 
suing  his  detective  schemes,  was  one  Theodore  Allen,  of  New  York,  of 
whom  I  had  never  heard  up  to  that  time,  and  who  figured  in  the  affair, 
as  was  subsequently  disclosed,  in  two  capacities,  viz.  :  as  aid  to  Colonel 
Baker,  in  detecting  and  arresting  the  scoundrels  who  were  swindling; 
the  people,  the  Government,  and  the  recruits,  and  at  the  same  time 
participating,  as  a  substitute  broker,  in  the  business  which  Colonel 
Baker's  efforts  were  directed  to  expose  and  prevent.  For,  no  sooner  had 
the  Hoboken  recruiting  office  accomplished  its  purpose  of  securing  the 
arrest  by  Colonel  Baker  of  a  large  number  of  the  most  notorious  bounty- 
jumpers,  than  the  bounty-brokering  firm  of  Allen,  Hughes  &  Riley, 
doing  business  in  New  York  city  (Theodore  Allen,  senior  partner),  made 
the  fictitious  enlistment  of  these  deserters  for  the  purpose  of  their  arrest 
the  means  of  a  fraud  more  stupendous  than  any  single  one  previously 
detected.  The  bounty- jumpers  in  question — 183  in  number — were  en 
listed  by  Colonel  Ilges  and  arrested  by  Colonel  Baker  on  the  10th  of 
March,  and  were  lodged  in  prison  at  Fort  Lafayette  on  the  night  of  the 
llth  of  March.  Colonel  Baker  reported  to  me  in  person  on  the  13th  of 
March,  as  shown  by  his  letter  of  the  16th,  in  evidence.  He  then  men 
tioned  the  subject  of  crediting  these  men.  I  took  the  ground  (see  his 
letter  of  16th),  from  which  I  never  deviated,  that  such  credit  could  not 
be  made  ;  but  the  subject  being  only  before  me  in  a  conversational  and 
informal  way,  and  constituting  at  that  interview  what  seemed  to  be  a 
very  subordinate  and  unimportant  part  of  the  business  going  on,  I  took 
no  further  official  action  at  that  time  relating  to  it,  than  to  give  Colonel 
Baker  my  views  as  expressed  above.  After  his  return  to  New  York, 


42  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

Col.  Baker  wrote  me  two  letters,  under  date  of  March  16  (in  evi 
dence),  received  on  the  17th,  from  which  I  learned  that  Col.  Ilges  had 
credited  these  men  on  the  quota  of  Jersey  City.  It  was  then  necessary 
for  me  to  act  further  in  the  premises,  and  I  adopted  the  principle,  as  in 
other  cases,  that  these  bounty -jumpers,  being  held  to  the  service  of  the 
United  States  by  previous  enlistments,  could  not  be  credited  to  any 
locality  as  new  recruits,  and  thus  deprive  the  army  of  men  to  the  ex 
tent  of  their  number.  I  had  ordered  that  the  men  be  held  as  deserters, 
and  I  accordingly  directed  that  they  should  not  be  credited  to  any 
locality,  and  as  an  inevitable  consequence,  I  ordered  that  any  money 
deposited  for  them  with  the  recruiting  officer  be  returned  to  the  parties 
advancing  it.  This  order  I  directed  to  be  issued  as  soon  as  I  received 
Colonel  Baker's  letters  on  the  17th,  and  the  records  in  evidence  show 
that  it  was  in  regular  routine  published,  by  one  of  my  assistants,  on  the 
19fch.  The  action  taken  in  this  matter  was  determined  upon  by  me  be 
fore  I  saw  Allen  on  the  18th,  and  neither  by  his  presence  or  otherwise, 
did  he  in  any  manner  influence  it.  Having  thus  disposed  of  the  sub 
ject,  I  discharged  it  from  my  mind,  and  when  subsequently  brought  up, 
merely  directed,  as  hereafter  shown,  a  repetition  of  my  orders.  On  the 
18th,  as  shown  by  one  of  iny  telegrams,  Theodore  Allen  appeared  in  my 
office.  He  urgently  requested  that  the  men  be  credited,  and  stated  that 
he  would  be  subjected  to  great  trouble  and  probable  loss  unless  it  was 
done.  He  entered  into  a  conversation  regarding  enlistment  frauds  gen 
erally  and  was  particularly  severe  on  the  frauds  of  the  Utica  district, 
denominating  that  place  ' '  a  perfect  walk, ' r  in  the  cant  phrase  of  the 
bounty -jumping  fraternity.  I  told  him  that  numerous  reports  received  by 
me,  through  Colonel  Baker  and  from  other  sources,  stated  the  same  thing ; 
but  that  the  Hon.  Roscoe  Conkling,  the  M.  C.  for  that  district,  stoutly 
denied  the  existence  of  any  frauds  there,  and  maintained  that  the  Pro 
vost  Marshal  and  Enrolment  Board  were  entirely  honest.  Allen  still 
asseverated  his  convictions  of  great  frauds  there,  and  said  he  knew 
Aaron  Richardson,  the  broker  there,  and  could  easily  find  out  all  about 
it  by  going  to  Utica.  At  this  time  I  was  in  the  midst  of  perplexity 
about  this  district,  the  Board  of  Enrolment  being  under  suspension. 

As  Allen  was  still  in  the  detective  service  of  the  bureau  under 
Colonel  Baker,  I  suggested  to  him  that  he  should  at  once  proceed  to  Utica, 
and  get  any  facts  available  relating  to  the  frauds  or  malpractices  alleged 
to  prevail  there  in  the  business  of  this  bureau.  I  said  nothing  to  him 
about  connecting  Roscoe  Conkling  with  fraud,  nor  anything  else  about 
that  person  than  what  is  hereinbefore  stated.  Allen  then  left  my  office, 
and  whether  he  went  to  Utica  or  not,  I  never  knew,  for  he  never  re 
ported  anything  to  me  ;  and  the  only  evidence  I  have  that  he  ever  visited 
that  city  is  his  incidental  mention  of  the  fact  in  his  telegram  of  March 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVEESY.  43 

24,  and  the  statement  which  I  do  not  remember  to  have  heard  until 
lately,  that  he  was  one  of  Colonel  Baker's  employees,  who  took  part  in 
the  attempt  to  arrest  Aaron  Richardson,  ttie  bounty  broker  at  Utica, 
which  failed  through  the  intervention  of  Mr.  Roscoe  Conkling. 

I  never,  to  my  knowledge,  saw  Allen  after  he  left  my  office  on  the 
18th  of  March,  until  he  appeared  here  as  a  witness. 

There  was  some  delay  by  Colonel  Ilges  in  complying  with  my  order, 
to  leturn  the  money  to  the  parties  who  advanced  it,  arising,  as  it  was 
said,  from  a  mistake  in  the  date  of  the  enlistments  as  stated  in  my 
order.  This  was  brought  to  my  notice  by  Allen's  telegram  of  March 
24,  which  I  treated,  as  I  would  have  done  a  similar  report  from  any 
other  person,  that  an  order  had  not  been  obeyed, — namely,  repeated  the 
order  to  the  senior  officer  present — Colonel  Baker;  gave  the  name  of 
Theodore  Allen  for  the  reported  failure  to  obey  orders,  and  directed  the 
senior  officer  (Colonel  Baker)  to  see  that  the  original  order  was  com 
plied  with.  The  order,  as  repeated,  was  in  specific  terms,  and  almost 
verbatim  each  time,  directing  that  the  money  deposited  with  Colonel 
Ilges  for  the  recruits  be  returned  to  the  parties  advancing  it.  I  did  not 
know  who  those  parties  were,  nor  did  I  take  pains  to  ascertain.  I  was 
overwhelmed  with  other  business,  and  this  affair  had  then  no  special 
importance.  Colonel  Ilges,  having  received  the  money,  was  of  course 
competent  to  decide  to  whom  it  should  be  paid  under  the  order.  I  left 
that  point  to  be  decided  without  dictation  or  interference  on  my  part. 
The  money  w^as  paid  back,  on  the  24th  of  March,  to  Allen,  Hughes  & 
Riley,  they  being  the  parties  who  advanced  it.  It  is  but  just,  however, 
to  Colonel  Ilges  and  myself,  in  this  connection,  to  state  that  a  letter 
addressed  by  him,  under  date  of  March  21,  to  Captain  Wesley  Owens, 
of  my  office,  suggested  the  point  that,  if  the  money  in  question — $54, 000 
— were  paid  back  to  the  parties  advancing  it,  injustice  might  be  done 
to  the  cities  and  towns  that  had  really  furnished  the  money,  which 
Allen,  Hughes  &  Riley  had  advanced.  This  letter  is  shown  to  have 
been  received  by  Captain  Owens  on  the  23d  of  March,  and,  if  it  was 
submitted  to  me  at  all,  it  was,  as  all  such  correspondence  at  that  time 
was,  by  brief  or  endorsement,  for  instructions  as  to  how  it  should  be 
answered.  The  official  brief  or  endorsement  showed  only  that  it  re 
ferred  to  the  same  subject  on  which  I  had  already  promulgated  a  con 
clusive  order,  and  the  answer,  dated  March  23,  of  Captain  Owens  to 
this  communication  merely  repeats  the  order  already  given.  I  have  no 
recollection  of  this  letter  having  been  submitted  to  me  at  all  when  re 
ceived;  but,  if  submitted,  it  was  by  its  brief,  which  is  as  follows  : 

"NEW  YORK  CITY,  March  21,  1865. 
"  GUIDO  ILGES,  Recruiting  Officer,  etc. 

"  In  reference  to  183  men,  mustered  on  the  10th  of  March,  1865,  and 
credited  to  Jersey  City.     Done  by  order  of  Colonel  L.  C.  Baker." 


44  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

As  my  official  correspondence  at  that  time  was  exceedingly  volu 
minous,  covering  hundreds  of  letters  daily,  and  as  every  energy  of  my 
Bureau  was  strained  to  provide  for  anticipated  need  of  men,  which 
happily  the  fortunes  of  war  relieved  us  from  sending  forward,  it  is 
quite  obvious  that  it  was  impossible  for  me  to  read  more  "than  the 
briefest  outline  of  the  subject  of  each  letter,  and  in  many  instances, 
not  to  read  them  at  all,  but  trust  them  to  be  answered  by  some  of  the 
numerous  well  trained  and  efficient  assistants  whom  the  business  of 
my  office  required  to  be  on  duty.  I  think  it  highly  probable  that  Cap 
tain  Owens  answered  this  letter  without  even  troubling  me  with  read 
ing  the  endorsement.  Such  would  have  been  proper  on  his  part,  an 
order  on  the  subject  having  already  been  issued.  But  this  point  is  im 
material. 

On  the  29th  of  March,  however,  the  full  force  of  Colonel  Ilges' 
letter  was  brought  to  my  attention  by  a  personal  interview  with  Hon. 
O.  Cleveland,  Mayor  of  Jersey  City,  who  stated  that  the  money  paid 
back  to  Allen,  Hughes  &  Riley,  belonged  in  reality  to  Jersey  City,  and 
that  such  payment  had  imperiled,  if  not  forfeited,  the  rights  of  that 
city.  He  urged  me,  therefore,  with  all  the  argument  and  entreaty 
which  an  earnest  man  could  use,  to  allow  these  men  to  be  credited,  in 
sisting  that,  even  if  they  were  bounty -jumpers,  Jersey  City  had  paid 
for  them  in  good  faith  through  the  money  advanced  by  Allen,  Hughes 
&  Riley,  and  that,  as  by  my  decision  the  money  had  been  returned  to 
those  men,  I  ought,  in  equity,  to  allow  the  credit,  so  as  to  relieve 
Jersey  City.  It  seemed  impossible  for  me,  under  the  law,  to  allow 
these  credits.  The  men  were  already  in  the  military  service,  and  my 
plain  duty  was  to  hold  them  as  deserters.  I  did  not  hold  my  office  as 
in  any  way  responsible  for  the  dealings  between  cities  and  bounty- 
brokers,  and  could  not  undertake  to  act  as  umpire  in  disputes  of  that 
character,  arising  so  numerously  throughout  the  loyal  States;  yet, 
having  discussed  these  points  with  Mayor  Cleveland,  I  told  him  that, 
owing  to  the  peculiar  circumstances  surrounding  this  case,  and  espe 
cially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  pressure  of  official  engagements  had 
prevented  my  appreciation  of  the  suggestion  in  Colonel  Ilges'  letter  of 
March  21st,  I  would  use  all  the  power  of  my  Bureau  in  aiding  him  to 
recover  the  money  from  the  hands  of  Allen,  Hughes  &  Riley.  I  was 
the  more  ready  and  anxious  to  do  this,  because  the  facts  narrated  to 
me  by  Mayor  Cleveland  disclosed  to  me  very  clearly,  for  the  first  time, 
that  Theodore  Allen  was  acting  a  double  part  in  the  whole  transac 
tion.  That,  having  been  employed  by  Colonel  Baker  to  induce  a  lot 
of  bounty  jumpers  to  enlist,  with  a  view  to  their  arrest,  he  had,  while 
playing  this  part  with  Colonel  Baker,  assumed  an  entirely  different 
role  with  Mayor  Cleveland,  and  had,  as  a  bounty-broker,  sold  to  him 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  45 

as  legitimate  recruits,  the  very  same  men  whom,  as  a  detective,  he  had 
induced  to  enlist,  to  be  entrapped  as  deserters.  I  learned  further  from 
Mayor  Cleveland  that  the  $300  for  each  recruit  that  was  deposited  with 
Colonel  Ilges  was  not  even  a  moiety  of  what  he  had  paid  to  Allen  & 
Riley;  that  he  had  paid  them  about  $700  per  man,  and  that  they  had 
in  all  in  their  possession  $126,000  of  money  belonging  to  Jersey  City. 
These  facts  being  revealed  to  me,  I  wrote  to  Colonel  Baker  immediately 
(March  29,  see  the  letter  in  evidence) ,  instructing  him  to  demand  of 
Allen  &  Co.  the  restitution  of  the  money  to  Jersey  City — holding  that, 
the  men  not  being  credited,  it  was  wrong  to  take  money  in  payment 
for  them  as  recruits.  Colonel  Baker  made  this  demand  of  Allen  & 
Co.,  and  they  refused  to  restore  the  money.  As  soon  as  their  re 
fusal  was  known  to  me,  I  issued  orders  (by  telegraph  and  letter, 
dated  April  6,  in  evidence;  for  their  arrest  and  confinement  in  the 
Old  Capital  Prison  until  the  money  was  restored.  Colonel  Baker  was 
charged  with  the  execution  of  this  order ;  but  Allen  and  his  partners, 
scenting  danger,  fled  to  Canada,  and  remained  as  fugitives  until  near 
the  close  of  the  year — my  order  for  their  arrest  being  all  the  time  sus 
pended  over  them  and  preventing  their  return  to  their  homes.  The 
men  who  thus  held  the  money  of  Jersey  City  being  beyond  reach,  the 
only  alternative  to  be  pursued  by  the  mayor  to  adjust  his  accounts 
was  to  procure  an  order  to  allow  these  bounty -jumpers  to  be  credited 
to  Jersey  City,  and  thus  legalize  the  payment  of  the  money,  and  as  a 
repugnant,  but  necessary  consequence,  confirm  the  $126,000  in  the 
possession  of  Allen  and  his  partners  in  this  transaction.  Very  great 
efforts  were  made  from  time  to  time  to  induce  me  to  allow  the  credits, 
and  while  I  appreciated  the  hardship  which  the  train  of  circumstances 
had  inflicted  on  Jersey  City,  I  did  not  consider  myself  empowered 
with  the  discretion  which  would  enable  me  to  comply  with  the  re 
quest.  I  accordingly  refused  to  do  so,  and  stated  the  grounds  of  my 
refusal  in  an  official  report  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  dated  October  25, 
1865  (in  evidence). 

The  case  thus  passed  from  my  jurisdiction  into  the  hands  of  my 
superior  officer,  who,  in  pursuance  of  the  larger  power  which  he  could 
exercise  in  the  premises,  directed  some  months  afterwards,  in  an  or 
der  (in  evidence) ,  that  the  credits  be  allowed  to  Jersey  City.  This 
might  well  have  appeared  to  the  Secretary  as  the  only  available  mode 
of  adjusting  the  matter  and  relieving  the  corporation  of  Jersey  City 
from  a  difficulty  in  which  it  had  become  unfortunately,  and  I  presume 
innocently,  involved.  As  a  Bureau  officer,  though  I  might  have  or 
dered  the  credits  without  a  question  from  anyone,  I  did  not  consider 
myself  empowered  with  the  authority  in  the  matter  which  might  be 
rightfully  exercised  by  the  Secretary  of  War.  His  authority  in  the 


46 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


case  was  absolute  and  unquestioned,  and  at  the  time  it  was  exercised 
it  did  not  interfere  in  the  least  with  the  efficiency  of  the  recruiting  sys 
tem.  The  credits  being  thus  allowed  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  my 
order  for  the  arrest  of  Alien  thereby  fell  to  the  ground,  and  I  supposed 
I  never  should  hear  of  the  matter  again.  But  Theodore  Allen,  smarting 
under  the  punishment  I  had  inflicted  on  him,  by  making  him  a  fugitive 
from  justice  and  an  absentee  from  his  country  for  the  better  part  of  a 
year,  appears  here,  at  Mr.  Conkling'  s  instance,  as  a  witness  against  me, 
and  swears  that  I  agreed  to  release  to  him  the  $54,000.  provided  he 
would  go  to  Utica  and  hunt  up  accusations  that  would,  at  all  hazards, 
connect  Mr.  Conkling' s  name  with  the  recruiting  frauds  alleged  to  be 
going  on  at  that  point, — that  I  made  this  infamous  proposition  to  him 
in  my  office,  having  sent  my  confidential  clerk  out  of  the  room  and 
put  my  hands  upon  his  shoulders  in  a  familiar  way,  and  urged  him  to 
this  course  in  the  most  persuasive  manner. 

At  the  time  Allen  alleges  this  extraordinary  proposition  to  have 
been  made,  let  it  be  remembered  that  I  had  never  seen  him  but  once 
before,  and  had  never  heard  of  him  until  a  few  weeks  previous.  Let 
the  probability  of  such  a  procedure  on  my  part  speak  for  itself,  and  let 
me  recall  the  fact  that  my  confidential  clerk  at  that  time,  Mr.  M.  L. 
De  Coursey,  of  Philadelphia,  swears  that  he  was  on  duty  in  my  office 
on  that  day,  where  he  was  habitually  stationed,  and  swears  further 
that  I  never,  on  any  occasion,  asked  him  to  leave  the  room  for  the  pur 
pose  of  holding  a  conversation  with  anyone,  —his  business  being  really 
to  stay  by  and  hear  conversations  and  take  note  of  anything  worthy  of 
record.  He  swore  further,  that  if  I  had  put  my  hands  upon  anyone  he 
could  not  have  failed  to  observe  such  an  extraordinary  proceeding. 

Allen  does  not  pretend  that  he  did  report  anything  to  me  against 
Mr.  Conkling,  and  on  the  hypothesis  of  his  own  wicked  invention,  he 
leaves  me  in  the  silly  attitude  of  having  agreed  to  release  him  the 
$54,000  on  condition  of  hunting  up  something  scandalous  against  Mr. 
Conkling,  and  then  stupidly  paying  the  money  without  getting  what 
I  bargained  for.  Even  conceding  that  I  was  base  enough  to  tender  the 
$54,000  for  defamatory  accusations  against  Mr.  Conkling,  1  submit 
that  I  was  hardly  weak  enough  to  let  the  money  go  without  getting 
something  in  return.  Mr.  Allen  never  subsequently  reported  anything 
to  me  about  Utica,  or  about  Mr.  Conkling,  or  about  anything  else,  and 
does  not  even  pretend  that  he  did ;  he  does  not  allege  any  reason  for 
failing  to  report  against  Mr.  Conkling,  nor  for  any  failure  on  my  part 
to  keep  the  agreement  which  he  says  I  made. 

I  am  at  a  loss  which  to  be  most  astonished  at,  the  character  of 
Allen's  testimony,  or  the  hardihood  manifested  in  introducing  him  as  a 
witness. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


47 


Allen's  whole  statement  is  sufficiently  disproved  by  the  circum 
stances  and  by  the  bald  impossibility  of  such  a  reckless  transaction  on 
my  part,  and  that,  too,  with  one  who  was  well-nigh  a  total  stranger  to 
me.  The  extravagance  of  the  amount  which  Allen  says,  or  intimates, 
was  to  be  released  to  him  on  condition  that  he  would  defame  Mr. 
Conkling  at  "  all  hazards,"  is  another  strong  point  against  the  truth 
of  his  allegation.  Men  who  are  depraved  enough  to  do  what  Allen 
swears  he  was  to  do,  can  usually  be  hired  for  a  small  percentage  of 
$54,000.  And,  in  this  connection,  from  a  different  standpoint,  I  may 
remark,  that  Mr.  Conkling  exaggerates  his  own  importance  when  he 
imagines  that  anyone  could  afford  $54,000  to  hunt  up  accusations, 
either  true  or  false,  against  him.  He  will  have  attained  far  more 
consequence  than  he  has  yet  reached  in  public  life,  before  a  tithe  of 
that  sum  could  be  profitably  invested,  even  by  a  reckless  and  wicked 
enemy,  in  detracting  from  his  reputation. 

It  must  be  noted  in  examining  Allen's  testimony,  that  at  the  time 
he  alleges  I  made  this  infamous  bargain  with  him,  I  had  never  seen 
Mr.  Conkling, — I  had  seen  Allen  but  once  before, — and  Allen  had 
never  seen  Mr.  Conkling.  We  have  Allen,  then,  in  the  attitude  of  a 
man  on  the  stand  swearing  that,  with  a  view  to  a  pecuniary  considera 
tion,  he  had  agreed  to  hunt  up  scandalous  charges  against  one  to  whom 
he  was  a  total  stranger, — a  confession  which  should  at  once  discredit 
his  testimony  on  all  points.  But  the  most  extraordinary  feature  of 
this  whole  transaction  is  the  fact  that  the  very  man  whom  he  swears 
he  agreed  to  defame  "  at  all  hazards,"  appears  here  as  his  patron,  and 
asks  the  Committee  to  accept  him  as  a  credible  witness,  with  whose 
testimony  the  reputation  of  another  might  be  blackened. 

I  have  dwelt  thus  at  length  on  this  Hoboken  affair  and  on  the 
character  of  Theodore  Allen,  judged  simply  by  the  circumstances  sur 
rounding  the  case,  and  on  the  basis  of  his  own  testimony.  I  leave  you 
to  make  a  proper  array  of  the  weighty  direct  evidence  affecting  Allen's 
credibility  as  a  witness.  I  will  allude,  however,  to  the  following 
facts : 

1st.  Colonel  Wright  Rives,  U.  S.  Army,  now  acting  as  private 
secretary  to  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  serving  on  the 
staff  of  Major-General  John  A.  Dix,  in  New  York  City,  during  the 
war,  testified  that  he  knew  Theodore  Allen,  and  that  his  reputation  for 
truth  and  veracity  was  bad,  that  he  would  not  believe  him  under  oath, 
and  that  he  had  heard  Allen's  character  spoken  of  as  bad  by  General 
Dix  and  by  Colonel  Van  Buren  and  Major  Joline,  of  General  Dix's 
staff,  and  also  by  John  A.  Kennedy,  Superintendent  of  Police  in  New 
York  City.  Mr.  Kennedy's  opinion  of  Allen  is  also  contained  in  an 
official  letter  to  General  Dix,  dated  February  17,  1864,  in  which  Mr. 


48 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


Kennedy  says :  ' '  Theodore  Allen  has  been  known  to  the  police  of  this 
city  for  at  least  ten  years ;  his  reputation  in  the  force  is  that  of  a  thief. ' ' 
I  send  you  an  official  copy  of  this  letter,  and  if  it  has  not  been  admitted 
as  evidence,  its  pertinence  will  certainly  insure  it  due  weight  before 
the  Committee. 

Mr.  Daniel  Carpenter,  Inspector  of  Police  in  the  City  of  New  York, 
next  in  rank  to  Superintendent  Kennedy,  testified  that  Allen's  reputa 
tion  was  bad,  and  that  he  would  not  believe  him  under  oath ;  and 

Petty,  Captain  of  Police,  testified  to  the  same  thing,  basing  his  testi 
mony  on  a  thorough  knowledge  of  Allen. 

Hotchkiss.  a  constable  in  the  city  of  Washington,  formerly  a 
deputy  sheriff  in  the  City  of  New  York,  testified  to  knowing  Allen, 
and  that  he  would  not  believe  him  under  oath. 

Testimony  on  this  point,  as  you  well  know,  could  have  been  pro 
duced  for  an  indefinite  period  of  time  by  the  summoning  of  other 
Witnesses ;  but,  having  secured  the  testimony  of  gentlemen  of  the 
highest  official  rank  arid  character,  connected  with  the  Police  of  New 
York,  and  others,  I  conceived  it  to  be  of  no  advantage  to  multiply 
witnesses  on  the  same  point.  Mr.  Conkling  introduced  respectable 
witnesses,  who  swore  that  they  would  believe  Allen  under  oath,  a 
species  of  testimony  not  vwy  conclusive  as  to  the  real  character  of  the 
man  and  by  no  means  an  offset  to  the  evidence  against  him,  by  men 
who  are  professionally  enabled  to  know  facts  about  such  men  as  Allen. 
Indeed  the  bulk  of  the  testimony  introduced  by  Mr.  Conkling,  to 
sustain  Allen,  only  went  to  show  that  Allen's  character  was — among 
the  most  favorable  -  a  subject  of  discussion,  and  that  his  real  reputation 
and  record  with  the  Police  were  not  so  generally  and  widely  known 
as  to  discredit  him  with  everybody. 

Please  urge  upon  the  Committee,  with  the  view  of  having  it  yet 
admitted  in  evidence,  if  that  be  possible,  that  Allen  was  convicted  on 
his  plea  of  guilty,  of  larceny  (pocket  picking)  in  the  court  of  Ger-eral 
Sessions  in  New  York  City,  on  the  4th  of  February,  1858,  and  that  he 
was  sentenced  for  this  misdemeanor  to  four  months'  imprisonment  in 
the  city  prison  of  New  York.  A  fully  authenticated  copy  of  the  record 
of  the  trial  and  conviction  of  Allen,  as  above,  was  offered,  but  was 
ruled  out  by  the  Committee,  because,  as  I  understand,  his  general 
character  was  not  in  issue. 

Allen's  own  testimony  respecting  himself,  elicited  on  cross-exami 
nation,  was  simply  this — that  he  was  originally  a  butcher,  became  a 
dining-room  employee,  then  kept  a  drinking  shop,  then  kept  a  gam 
bling  house,  and  then  entered  upon  the  business  of  bounty  brokerage.  He 
admitted  that  during  the  time  he  was  engaged  in  the  bounty  broker- 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVEESY.  49 

age.  he  was  confined  several  months  in  Fort  Lafayette  by  order  of  Gen 
eral  Dix. 

You  will  please  notice  in  your  plea  the  allusions  which  Mr.  Conk- 
ling  has  made  to  the  fact  that  I  have  not  offered  myself  for  examina 
tion  as  a  witness  in  my  own  behalf.  Why  should  I  have  done  so,  or 
how,  with  propriety  and  self-respect,  could  I  have  done  so?  My  accu 
sations  against  Mr.  Conkling  were  specifically  set  forth  in  my  letter, 
duly  subscribed  by  me ;  I  did  not  consider  that  I  should  have  added  to 
the  force  of  those  accusations  by  offering  to  swear  to  their  truth.  I 
sought  to  prove  their  entire  correctness  by  the  evidence  of  official 
papers,  and  I  think  I  have  succeeded.  I  took  the  same  ground,  in  effect, 
with  regard  to  the  testimony  of  Theodore  Allen.  I  was  not  disposed 
from  choice  to  place  myself  in  the  attitude  of  bandying  contradictions 
with  such  a  man  as  he.  and  I  accordingly  pursued  the  method  of  dis 
proving  his  testimony  by  producing  official  records  in  refutation  and.  in 
addition  thereto,  proving  that  he  was  not  to  be  believed  on  oath.  You 
will  not  forget  that  the  Committee  was  fully  empowered  to  send  for 
persons  and  papers,  and  could  have  called  me  on  to  the  witness  stand, 
had  they  desired  my  testimony  in  the  investigation,  which  they  were 
directed  by  the  House  to  make;  and  you  will  further  remember  that 
you  reminded  Mr.  Conkling  of  his  power  to  call  me  at  any  time,  and 
of  my  readiness  to  respond  to  his  call  or  that  of  the  Committee. 

I  desire  that  you  will  urge  upon  the  Committee  the  propriety  of 
furnishing  me  with  the  specific  charges  against  me,  which  Mr.  Conk 
ling  proposes  to  have  investigated.  I  have  been  rigidly  confined  to  the 
text  of  my  letter  in  the  accusations  1  brought  against  Mr.  Conkling ; 
and  it  is  but  fair  that  he  should  be  made  to  specify,  with  distinctness, 
what  he  proposes  to  prove  against  me.  Up  to  this  time  I  have  been 
favored  only  with  general  denunciation  from  that  gentleman,  and  with 
high-sounding  phrases  about  the  "carnival  of  corrupt  disorder  "  which 
prevailed  in  my  Bureau  in  Western  New  York.  He  has  not  come  to  a 
specific  charge  against  me,  except  in  the  Hoboken  affair,  and  in  this 
his  whole  case  rests  on  the  uncorroborated  and  fully  impeached  testi 
mony  of  Theodore  Allen.  Obvious  as  the  fact  is,  I  desire  you  to  press 
it  on  the  attention  of  the  Committee  wTith  earnestness,  for  1  wish  it  to 
be  made  clearly  manifest  that  Mr.  Conkling  has  made  himself  the  ally 
of  Theodore  Allen  in  this  extraordinary  affair.  My  request  for  a  speci 
fication  of  charges  is  respectfully  urged,  either  in  the  event  of  this 
Committee  continuing  the  investigation,  or  in  the  event  of  that  labor 
being  transferred  to  another  tribunal.  In  either  event,  it  is  my  plain 
right  to  know  whereof  I  am  accused.  Mr.  Conkling  avows  that  the 
accusations  he  has  against  me  came  to  his  knowledge  nearly  a  year  and 
a  half  ago,  and  had  he  then,  while  acting  as  Judge  Advocate,  or  at  any 


50  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVEESY. 

subsequent  time,  filed  charges  against  me  with  the  Secretary  of  "War, 
that  high  official,  with  his  known  zeal  for  the  purity  of  the  public  ser 
vice,  would  undoubtedly  have  had  them  promptly  investigated.  That 
line  of  manly  proceeding  is  still  open  to  Mr.  Conkling.  He  has  the 
right  as  an  American  citizen  to  file  charges  against  me  as  an  officer  of 
the  army,  and  if  the  charges  are  not  wholly  frivolous  and  groundless, 
he  well  knows  that  an  official  inquiry  would  at  once  be  made  into  their 
truth. 

You  will  not  represent  me  to  the  Committee  as  in  the  least  degree 
desirous  that  the  investigation  should  no  longer  be  prosecuted  by  them, 
for  I  have  no  desire  to  avoid  a  scrutiny  which  I  am  sure  would  be  hon 
orable  and  impartial,  neither  will  you  represent  me  as  asking  a  Court 
of  Inquiry,  for,  as  I  have  already  stated,  no  charges  made  by  Mr.  Conk- 
ling  are  deemed  by  me  sufficiently  grave  to  render  this  step  on  my  part 
either  necessary  or  desirable. 

It  must  be  very  obvious  to  every  one,  and  yet  I  hope  you  will  call 
it  to  the  attention  of  the  Committee,  that  it  is  easy  to  bring  charges 
and  ' '  railing  accusations  ' '  against  a  Bureau  entrusted  with  duties  so 
weighty  and  delicate,  and  in  many  respects  so  obnoxious  as  were 
those  pertaining  to  my  office.  I  was  charged  with  the  very  difficult 
task  of  recruiting  one  of  the  largest,  if  not  the  very  largest  army  ever 
marshalled  by  a  Christian  nation,  and  when  voluntary  enlistments 
were  insufficient,  it  was  my  official  duty  to  enforce  a  rigid  conscrip 
tion,  and  accompany  these  duties  with  the  summary  arrest  of  all  de 
serters  from  the  ranks,  and  of  all  who  sought  to  avoid  the  draft  at 
home.  These  duties  brought  me  into  contact  with  the  noblest  of  my 
countrymen  and  with  the  vilest  also,  and  as  a  necessary  consequence  I 
received  the  ill  will  of  the  evilly  disposed  throughout  the  land:  officers 
who  were  dismissed  or  otherwise  punished  for  neglect  of  duty ;  bounty- 
brokers  imprisoned  for  cheating  recruits ;  thieves  and  swindlers,  ar 
rested  and  punished  through  my  efforts,  are,  by  their  very  natures, 
my  enemies  to-day.  Theodore  Aliens  by  scores,  and  possibly  by  hun 
dreds,  can  be  summoned  to  the  witness  stand  by  Mr.  Conkling  to  swear 
to  accusations  as  base  and  as  groundless  as  that  to  which  Allen  has  made 
oath ;  but  I  feel  well  assured  that  the  clear  records  of  my  office  will 
effectually  bear  me  out  in  good  faith,  and  sustain  the  honor  of  my 
official  character  at  all  points.  But,  in  addition  to  these  records,  I 
have  the  testimony  of  those  highest  in  authority  throughout  the  loyal 
States,  and  in  no  way  under  my  control,  certifying  to  the  zeal,  fidelity 
and  ability  with  which  I  have  discharged  my  responsible  duties.  This 
testimony,  flattering  in  its  terms,  could  only  be  referred  to  by  me  when 
forced  to  allude  to  unjustifiable  assaults  on  my  official  reputation. 

In  a  conference  with  President  Lincoln,  at  one  of  the  trying  and 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  51 

difficult  crises  of  the  war,  when  a  draft  was  feared  as  a  signal  for  riot 
in  some  places,  I  ventured  to  complain  to  him  of  the  obloquy  which 
was  sought  to  be  attached  to  my  name  as  the  mere  administrator  of  the 
law.  ' '  That  is  necessarily  the  case  for  the  present, ' '  he  replied ;  ' '  but 
it  will  be  all  right  in  the  end. ' '  In  that  confidence  I  rest  to-day,  almost, 
if  not  quite,  indifferent  to  the  attacks  which  Hon.  Roscoe  Conkling  or 
Mr.  Theodore  Allen,  jointly  or  singly,  may  make  upon  me. 
I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  B.  FRY. 
WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  June  25,  1866. 

My  counsel,  Mr.  Riddle,  had  to  make  his  oral  argu 
ment  the  next  evening,  and  all  of  the  next  day  my 
letter  was  in  the  hands  of  the  printer,  so  that  Mr. 
Riddle  had  no  opportunity  to  use  it  if  he  had  desired 
to  do  so.  I  hoped  that  the  letter  would  prove  of  ad 
vantage  to  me  with  members  of  Congress  to  whom  I 
sent  it  as  soon  as  it  was  in  print,  but  in  this  I  was 
mistaken.  So  far  as  appeared  the  effect  was  decidedly 
unfavorable  to  me.  The  point  that  was  uppermost  in 
the  minds  of  Congressmen  in  this  affair  seemed  to  be 
that  the  privilege  of  the  House  had  been  violated  by 
my  letter  to  Mr.  Elaine  in  a  way  that  deserved  rebuke, 
and  this  letter  to  my  counsel  was  regarded  as  repeat 
ing  or  aggravating  the  offense,  and  as  canvassing 
against  the  Committee  in  the  House,  and  their  indig 
nation  was  heightened  in  proportion. 

No  objection,  however,  was  heard  to  the  canvassing 
against  me  by  Mr.  Conkling  and  his  counsel,  Mr. 
Hotchkiss,  ^both  members  of  the  House,  possessing 
power  not  only  to  canvass,  but  to  vote  upon  the  case 
in  which  they  were  parties  in  interest.  Though  T  felt 
some  disappointment  at  the  result  of  the  letter, 
I  did  not  regret  having  issued  it,  regarding  it 


52 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


as  sound  and  just  if  not  politic.  For  two  or  three 
years  I  had  been  under  the  pressure  of  great  official 
labor,  care  and  responsibility.  The  protracted  and 
technical  course  of  the  investigation  added  to  my 
burden,  and  it  is  literally  true  that  when  Mr.  Conk- 
ling  introduced  Theodore  Allen*  as  a  witness  upon 
the  branch,  of  the  subject  to  which  his  testimony,  if 
admissable  at  all,  did  not  relate  and  could  only  injure 
me,  and  the  Committee  received  the  testimony,  I,  con 
scious  of  my  rectitude,  and  perhaps  overestimating 
my  strength,  ceased  to  care  much  what  conclusion  the 
Committee  reached.  The  Committee  heard  counsel 


*  Allen's  career  has  been  consistent  and  remarkable.  His  latest  ad 
venture  is  announced  by  the  N.  Y.  Evening  Pout,  July  10,  1891,  from 
\vhichthefollowingabstractismade:  "The"  Allen,  the  gambler,  dive- 
keeper  and  politician,  who  was  stabbed  in  the  back  early  this  morning, 
is  lying  at  his  home,  No.  246  West  Forty-third  Street,  in  a  dangerous 
condition.  The  stabbing  was  in  the  "dive"  at  the  south-west  corner 
of  Bleecker  Street  and  South  Fifth  Avenue. 

Allen  has  long  been  one  of  the  most  notorious  men  in  the  city.  He 
formerly  kept  the  "  Mabille,"  in  Bleecker  Street,  near  police  head 
quarters.  Twelve  or  fifteen  years  ago,  when  he  ran  a  faro  bank  at  No. 
611  Broadway,  he  shot  and  killed  his  friend.  Edward  Molloy,  who  was  a 
private  detective,  but  more  of  a  gambler. 

The  N.  Y.  Sun  of  July  11,  1891,  in  an  account  of  this  affair  says: 
' '  The  ' '  Allen  was  the  eldest  of  five  brothers,  sons  of  a  reputable  busi 
ness  man  of  the  Eighth  ward.  All  five  have  made  unenviable  reputa 
tions.  John,  the  second  in  age,  is  the  only^one  of  the  family  who  has 
never  heard  a  prison  door  closed  behind  him.  "  The  "  Allen  has  been  in 
prison  several  times  on  minor  charges.  Once  he  was  in  the  Tombs  on  an 
indictment  for  burglary.  The  complainant  failed  to  appear  and  he  was 
discharged.  Again  he  was  indicted  for  murder  in  the  first  degree  for 
shooting  Eddie  Molloy,  a  private  detective  and  gambler.  He  was  re 
leased  on  bail  and  was  never  tried.  The  indictment  is  still  pending. 
Martin  Allen  is  now  in  Sing  Sing  serving  a  sentence  imposed  three  years 
ago  for  pocket  picking.  Jesse  Allen  was  killed  by  jumping  from  a  train 
in  attempting  to  escape  from  custody.  ; Wesley  Allen,  easily  to  be  recog 
nized  by  the  patch  that  conceals  the  loss  of  his  left  eye,  gouged  out  in  a 
street  fight,  served  a  term  in  the  penitentiary  for  assault. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  53 

on  the  26th  of  June,  1866.  My  counsel's  argument 
was  oral,  as  required,  Mr.  Conkling,  as  shown  by  the 
record,  reading  an  argument  instead  of  making  an 
oral  plea. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
THE  COMMITTEE'S  REPORT. 

When  the  Committee  reported,  July  19,  1866,  the 
House  was  in  the  frame  of  mind  described  by  Justice 
Story,  in  his  work  on  the  Constitution,  in  which  he  says: 

"  Public  bodies,  like  private  persons,  are  occasionally  under  the  do 
minion  of  strong  passions  and  excitements  ;  impatient,  irritable  and 
impetuous.  The  habit  of  acting  together  produces  a  strong  tendency  to 
what,  for  the  want  of  a  better  word,  may  be  called  the  corporation  spirit, 
or  what  is  so  happily  expressed  in  a  foreign  phrase,  V  esprit  de  corps. 
Certain  popular  leaders  often  acquire  an  extraordinary  ascendency  over 
the  body  by  their  talents,  their  eloquence,  their  intrigues,  or  their 
cunning. 

"A  legislative  body  is  not  ordinarily  apt  to  mistrust  its  own  powers, 
and  far  less  the  temperate  exercise  of  those  powers.  As  it  prescribes 
its  own  rules  for  its  own  deliberations,  it  easily  relaxes  them  whenever 
any  pressure  is  made  for  an  immediate  decision.  If  it  feels  no  check 
but  its  own  will,  it  rarely  has  the  firmness  to  insist  upon  holding  a  ques 
tion  long  enough  under  its  own  view  to  see  and  mark  it  in  all  its  bear 
ings,"  etc. 

Mr.Thaddeus  Stevens  was  leader  or  overseer  of  the 
House.  He  was  a  radical  politician  of  bitter  speech. 
The  Congressman's  privilege  of  saying  what  he  pleases 
without  accountability  suited  him  exactly.  He  regarded 
my  letter  repelling  the  outrageous  attack  Mr.  Conk- 
ling  had  made  upon  me  as  "  causeless."  The  fact  was 
before  him  that  the  charges  against  me  had  not  been 
investigated.  Nevertheless  he  contributed  to  the 
malign  spirit  of  the  occasion  by  saying : 

"  All  I  have  to  say  is  I  do  not  know  that  a  more  causeless,  gross  at 
tack  has  ever  been  made  upon  a  member  of  the  House  either  here  or 
elsewhere  than  that  contained  in  that  letter.  I  had  hoped,  however, 
that  the  Committee  would  go  a  little  further  in  reference  to  the  trans- 

54 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  55> 

action  mentioned  in  the  report  in  which  some  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  dollars  were  absorbed  by  somebody.  There  were,  if  the  evidence 
is  to  be  believed,  three  parties  implicated.  Two  of  them.  I  believe,  are 
now  in  the  penitentiary.  The  third  is  General  Fry.  Why  is  it  that 
some  steps  have  not  been  taken  by  the  Committee  to  send  him  there  ?" 

Upon  the  same  occasion,  when  denouncing  my  let 
ter  to  Mr.  Elaine,  Mr.  Stevens  said  : 

"I  must  do  the  gentleman  from  Maine,  now  absent,  the  justice  to- 
suppose  that  he  was  entirely  uninformed  of  the  contents  of  the  letter  or 
he  never  would  have  presented  it  to  the  House." 

This  is  a  sample  of  the  "justice  "  members  of  the 
House  may  do  each  other  on  questions  between  them 
and  outsiders.  Mr.  Elaine  having  presented  my  letter 
as  his  proof  that  he  was  not  guilty,  as  charged  by  Mr. 
Conkling,  of  having  made  a  "  false "  statement,  Mr. 
Stevens  does  Mr.  Elaine  the  " justice"  to  suppose  that 
Mr.  Elaine  was  entirely  uninformed  of  the  terms  and 
force  of  the  proof  which  he  presented  in  his  own  de 
fence.  This  is  about  the  same  as  if  the  leader  of  the 
House  had  said  that  if  necessary  to  transfer  blame 
from  Mr.  Elaine  to  me,  he  would  assume  that  his  fel 
low-member,  one  of  the  smartest  men  the  country  has 
ever  produced,  was  a  fool.  Such  was  "  the  corpora 
tion  spirit,"  or  Ve&prii  de  corps,  of  the  House  men 
tioned  by  Justice  Story. 

Speaking  of  the  letter  to  my  counsel,  heretofore 
given,  Mr.  Shellabarger  said  on  the  floor  of  the  House  : 

"And  there  is  another  statement  here  that  is  equally  singular, consid 
ering  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  He  [General  Fry]  says :  '  I 
formally  applied  to  the  Committee  for  a  copy  of  the  record,  the  testi 
mony  having  been  phonographically  reported,  and  offered  to  pay  the 
expenses  of  transcribing  it,  but  was  refused. '  Now  it  will  occur  to 
every  member  of  the  House,"  continued  the  Chairman,  "  that  it  would 
be  a  very  singular  request  to  make  of  a  Committee  of  the  House,  whose 
proceedings  are  confidential  and  not  to  be  disclosed  except  by  leave  of 


56 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


the  House,  that  it  should  be  required  to  let  its  evidence  go  out  into 
the  town,  into  the  offices  of  lawyers,  and  to  be  hawked  about  the 
streets.  I  am  surprised  that  a  statement  of  the  character  read  should 
be  made,  under  all  the  circumstances,  by  General  Fry." 

In  the  same  debate  a  member  defined  me  as  "  the 
person  on  trial."  In  the  feeling  and  judgment  of  the 
House,  the  request  of  the  person  on  trial  for  a  copy  of 
the  record  of  his  case  was  a  matter  for  reprobation. 

My  counsel  failed  in  his  efforts  to  get  an  important 
and- respectful  petition  before  the  House  (see  Appen 
dix  C)  relating  to  letters  which  he  said  "are  most 
material  to  a  right  understanding  of  that  part  of  the 
case,  and  these  are  two  of  a  series  of  some  twenty- 
three  papers,  all  offered,  as  will  be  shown  in  evidence 
on  the  part  of  General  Fry,  and  all  competent  and  im 
portant  evidence.  It  will  be  found  difficult  to  cor 
rectly  judge  of  material  portions  of  the  Conkling-Fry 
case  in  the  absence  of  these  papers,  as  they  contain 
the  whole  of  General  Fry's  evidence  on  the  points 
they  refer  to,"  and  which  letters  the  Committee  denied 
ever  having  seen,  though  they  had  been  duly  laid  be 
fore  it. 

In  the  condition  indicated  by  the  foregoing  re 
marks,  the  House  heard  the  Committee's  report,  but 
knew  nothing  of  the  testimony. 

In  the  first  debate  (April  24)  Mr.  Elaine  said  he 
was  "  in  a  very  weakly  condition."  His  health  did 
not  improve,  and  a  day  or  two  before  the  Committee 
reported  to  the  House,  he  was  forced,  by  sickness,  to 
go  to  his  home  in  Maine.  In  his  absence  there  was  no 
one  in  the  House  to  make  a  stand  against  the  Com 
mittee's  report.  Mr,  Pike  defended  Mr.  Elaine,  his 
colleague,  as  well  as  he  could,  but  he  did  not  defend 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVEESY.  57 

me.*  On  the  contrary,  he  said,  speaking  of  me,  u  I  do 
not  propose  to  defend  him.  I  only  speak  of  the  part 
my  colleague  had  in  the  transaction.  He  generously 
defended  Gen.  Fry  as  he  would  any  friend  he  deemed 
unjustly  assailed,  and  Gen.  Fry  furnished  him  the 
letter  expressly  to  be  read  in  the  House."  Mr.  Went- 
worth  said,  "  Have  you  seen  Gen.  Fry  ?  "  Mr.  Pike  re 
plied,  "  I  have  not ;  I  have  had  no  communication  with 
him."  The  "  breach  of  privilege,"  as  shown  by  the  de 
bate,  was  then  the  point  at  issue,  and  Mr.  Pike  directed 
his  efforts  to  transferring  the  responsibility  for  it  to 
me.  He  confessed  that  he  had  not  been  in  communi 
cation  with  me  concerning  the  letter,  and  I  assume  his 

O  7 

statements  were  without  Mr.  Elaine's  authority  or 
knowledge,  for  Mr.  Elaine  never  denied,  so  far  as  I 
know,  that  he,  not  I,  was  responsible  for  the  reading 
of  the  letter  in  the  House.  But  the  point  success 
fully  made  by  Mr.  Pike  was,  that  as  the  letter  was 
read  from  the  Clerk's  desk,  Mr.  Elaine  was  not  guilty 
of  breach  of  privilege.  He  said,  "  The  House  can 
judge  whether  there  was  any  invasion  of  its  dignity 
when  all  the  members  consented  to  have  the  letter 
read  to  them ;  certainly  my  colleague  did  nothing  but 
what  was  fair  and  manly.  The  House  cannot  com 
plain  if  they  failed  to  object  to  the  reading  of  what 
they  desired  to  hear."  The  action  of  the  House  was  a 
practical  if  not  formal  adoption  of  Mr.  Pike's  point,  that 
the  House  itself  was  responsible  for  the  breach  of  priv 
ilege.  It  being  true,  as  Mr.  Pike  said,  that  "the  House 
cannot  complain  if  they  failed  to  object  to  the  reading 
of  what  they  wanted  to  hear,"  is  it  not  equally  true 

*  The  debate  is  given  in  full.     Appendix  D. 


58  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

that  the  House  could  not  consistently  complain  of  the 
writing  of  the  thing  which,  according  to  Mr.  Pike  and 
the  action  of  the  House,  they  wanted  to  hear  read  ? 

In  this  debate  in  the  House,  aside  from  Mr.  Pike's 
defence  of  Mr.  Elaine,  the  point  at  issue  was  not  the 
difficulty  between  Mr.  Conkling  and  Mr.  Elaine,  but 
was  whether  I  had  violated  the  privileges  of  the 
House.  The  Committee,  -as  the  Chairman  stated,  had 
considered  the  "  important  question  of  the  privileges 
of  the  House,  and  of  a  member  of  it." 

The  Chairman  said  in  the  House : 

"The  Committee,  as  has  already  been  noticed,  have  confined  their 
investigation  to  the  question  of  privilege  affecting  the  rights  of  the  gen 
tleman  from  New  York  (Mr.  Conkling).  The  Committee,  so  confining 
its  investigations,  deemed  it  fair  and  proper  that  the  gentleman  from 
New  York  should  control  the  matter  of  the  introduction  of  testimony 
affecting  his  personal  privilege,  subject  of  course  to  the  right  of  the 
Committee  to  take  care  of  the  right  and  the  privileges  of  the  House.' ' 

Mr.  Davis  said  : 

"  The  question,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  one  of  grave  importance,  affecting 
the  right  of  a  member  of  this  House  to  utter  his  sentiments  and  opin 
ions  without  being  confronted  by  a  libel  upon  his  private  or  public 
character,  read  at  the  Clerk' s  desk  at  the  suggestion  of  a  member  upon 
the  floor. "  "I  repeat, ' '  said  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee,  ' '  what 
has  been  said  in  the  report,  that  a  more  careful  and  more  malicious 
and  wanton  violation  of  the  privileges  of  the  House,  and  of  its  mem 
bers,  has  not  been  brought  to  the  notice  of  any  member  of  the  Com 
mittee." 

The  Committee's  report  was  unanimous,  and  no 
one  present  in  the  House,  except  the  Committee,  Mr. 
Conkling  and  his  counsel,  Mr.  Hotchkiss,  had 
knowledge  of  the  testimony  on  which  it  was  based,  or 
of  the  way  that  testimony  had  been  understood  and 
construed.  Mr.  Elaine  was  the  only  one  in  my  inter 
est  who  had  information,  and  he  was  absent,  sick.  The 


'  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  59 

report  was  adopted  by  the  House  almost  unanimously, 
the  vote  being,  yeas  96,  noes,  4.  As  the  occasion  was  an 
exciting  one,  and  the  House  was  well  filled,  it  is  note 
worthy  that  the  record  shows  "not  voting  82."  Mr. 
Conkling  did  not  vote,  but  Mr.  Hotchkiss,  his  counsel, 
voted  for  the  adoption  of  the  Committee's  report. 

The  report  of  the  Committee  is  given  in  full  in 
Appendix  D.  It  completely  exonerates  Mr.  Conk- 
ling,  pronounces  the  statements  I  made  against  him  to 
be  wholly  without  foundation,  palliation,  or  excuse, 
and  says  that  I,  in  writing  the  letter  to  Mr.  Elaine, 
was  guilty  of  a  gross  violation  of  Mr.  Conkling's  privi 
leges  as  a  member  of  the  House. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Mr.  Elaine  alleged  in 
the  House,  in  explanation  of  Mr.  Conkling's  attack 
upon  me,  that  there  were  differences  between  Mr.Conk- 
ling  and  me,  in  which  Mr.  Conkling  came  out  second 
best,  and  Mr.  Conkling  pronounced  the  statement 
"  false."  That  was  the  open  issue  between  them.  In 
the  next  debate,  Mr.  Elaine  had  my  letter  read  in  the 
House  as  proof  (and  he  offered  no  other  proof)  that 
his  statement,  which  Mr.  Conkling  had  pronounced 
"  false,"  was  true.  Notwithstanding  the  logic  of  the 
situation,  the  House  did  nothing  to  Mr.  Elaine  upon 
his  apparent  conviction.  If  the  statements  in  my  let 
ter  are  without  foundation,  as  reported  by  the  Com 
mittee,  Mr.  Conkling's  victory  over  both  Mr.  Elaine 
and  me  is  complete.  But  the  Committee's  finding  is 
erroneous  and  unjust. 

Their  record  shows  that  they  investigated  only 
my  statements  against  Mr.  Conkling.  No  allegation 
was  made  of  breach  of  privilege,  but  as  it  turned  out 


60  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

I  was  convicted  of  that  offence,  and  sentenced 
without  knowing  that  I  was  being  tried.  Like  the 
Court  martial  which  tried  a  private  for  desertion,  and 
found  the  Captain  who  preferred  the  charge  guilty  of 
stealing  a  pack  saddle,  the  Committee  tried  Mr.  Conk- 
ling  on  my  charge  concerning  his  rights,  duties  and 
services  as  a  special  army  Judge  Advocate,  and  found 
me  guilty  of  breach  of  privilege  of  the  House  of 
Representatives. 

My  letter  to  Mr.  Elaine  was  founded  upon  and 
was  accompanied  by  a  series  of  official  documents.  As 
these  documents  were  read  in  the  House,  and  pub 
lished  with  the  letter  in  the  Congressional  Globe,  they 
were  before  the  Committee  in  the  same  way  that  the 
letter  to  which  they  belonged  was.  Yet  the  Commit, 
tee,  omitting  them  from  their  report  and  failing,  so  far 
as  appears,  to  notice  the  official  documents  upon  which 
my  letter  was  founded,  report  the  letter  as  "  wholly 
without  foundation  in  truth."  That  this  finding  is 
erroneous  and  unjust  I  shall  now  proceed  to  show  by 
an  examination  in  detail  of  the  Committee's  record  and 
report. 


CHAPTER  V. 

REVIEW  OF  THE  COMMITTEE'S  REPORT. 

My  letter  is  given  in  full  in  Appendix  B.  It  is 
free  from  ambiguity  or  hidden  significance.  With  its 
accompanying  documents  it  affords  sufficient  evidence 
of  its  own  substantial  truth  if  taken  in  its  plain  mean 
ing.  The  Committee,  however,  attributed  to  state 
ments  made  by  me  a  meaning  which  I  never  intended, 
or  even  thought  of,  and  pronounce  the  statements  un 
true  in  that  meaning.  This  action  of  the  Committee 
makes  a  minute  examination  of  their  report  necessary ; 
and  I,  therefore,  take  up  the  important  paragraphs  in 
order  from  beginning  to  end. 

The  Committee  say : 

"The  first  statement  of  the  letter  of  General  Fry  to  be  investigated 
under  the  rule  adopted  by  the  Committee  is  as  follows: 

**  'Tn  the  summer  of  1863  Mr.  ConUing  made  a  case  for  himself  by 
telegraphing  to  the  War  Department  that  the  Provost  Marshal  of  his 
district  required  legal  advice,  which  he  was  hereupon  empowered  to 
give. ' 

"The  Committee  understand  this  charge  to  be  that  Mr.  Conkling 
secured  his  own  employment  professionally  by  the  Department,  by  tele 
graphing  that  the  Provost  Marshal  of  his  district  required  legal  ad 
vice,  and  that  his  motive  and  object  in  transmitting  the  dispatch  was 
to  secure  such  employment.  Unless  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  words  of 
the  letter,  there  is  no  significance  at  all  attached  to  them,  in  the  con 
nection  in  which  they  are  used. ' ' 

In  the  phrase  above  quoted,  there  is  no  hidden 
meaning.  It  was  immediately  preceded  by  the  remark 
that,  in  consequence  of  the  difficulty  between  Mr. 
Conkling  and  myself,  I  proposed  to  give  an  account  in 
detail  of  Mr.  C?s  connection  with  my  bureau.  I,  there- 

61 


62 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


fore,  naturally  began  with  the  circumstances  stated  as 
the  first  of  any  importance  in  that  history.  What 
right  has  the  Committee  to  "  understand "  that  I 
charged  that  Mr.  Conkling's  "  motive  and  object"  in 
transmitting  a  dispatch  was  to  secure  for  himself  pro 
fessional  employment,  and  then  to  pronounce  that  I 
have  falsified  because  they  find  no  such  motive  on  Mr. 
ConJcling^s  part  ? 

Now,  without  any  reference  to  the  understanding 
of  the  Committee  as  to  what  was  meant,  let  us  see 
whether  the  proof  does  or  does  not  sustain  the  state 
ment,  which  is  the  thing  the  Committee  was  ordered 
by  the  House  to  examine  into. 

What  occasioned  the  employment  of  Mr.  Conkling 
as  counsel  in  that  case  ?  Simply  the  fact  that  he  tele 
graphed  to  the  War  Department  that  an  attachment 
had  been  issued  against  the  Provost  Marshal  of  his  dis 
trict  for  refusing  to  obey  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  and 
asks,  "  What  shall  we  do  ?  "  the  District  Attorney  and 
his  assistant  are  absent. 

The  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  he  says,  was  issued  "in 
the  absence  of  all  of  us  who  could  aid  him  profession 
ally"  All  this  is  said  after  at  least  one  "  who  could 
aid  him  professionally  "  had  returned,  for  Mr.  Co-nk- 
ling^s  dispatch  is  sent  by-  him  from  Utica  (but  the 
law  officers  of  the  government  are  still  absent),  and  he 
says,  "  What  shall  we  do  ?  " 

Here  is  the  entire  dispatch  : 

"In  the  absence  of  all  of  us  who  could  aid  him  professionally,  the 
Provost  Marshal  here  was  served  with  a  habeas  corpus  to  produce  a  deserter ; 
(he  obeyed  the  order  not  to  produce),  and  so  returned.  The  judge  held 
this  insufficient^  and  issued  attachment.  He  telegraphed  the  District 
.Attorney  and  his  assistant,  ' '  they  are  absent  and  engaged — what  shall 
we  do  ? "  (Signed)  ' '  R.  CONKLING. ' ' 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  63 

Now,  how  did  the  Secretary  of  War  understand 
that  dispatch  ?  As  it  was  addressed  in  the  line  of 
his  official  duty  to  the  Secretary,  an  able  lawyer,  it  is 
presumed  he  understood  its  meaning.  Here  is  his 
reply  : 

"Circular  No.  36,  from  this  office,  of  July  1,  in  regard  to  desert 
ers,  must  be  sustained.  The  Secretary  of  "War  desires  you  to  act  as  coun 
sel  in  behalf  of  the  United  States,  in  case  of  litigation  growing  out  of 
the  action  of  the  Provost  Marshal  at  Utica,  as  presented  in  your  dispatch 
of  this  date. 

' '  Please  show  this  dispatch  to  the  Provost  Marshal. 

(Signed)  "JAMES  B.  FRY, 

• '  Pro.  Mar.  General. ' ' 

Let  any  sound  and  candid  mind  say  whether  or 
not  this  sustains  the  statement  that,  in  the  summer  of 
1863,  Mr.  Conkling  telegraphed  to  the  Department 
that  the  Provost  Marshal  of  his  district  required  legal 
advice,  and  that  he  was  empowered  to  give  it,  and 
that  thereby  he  made  a  case  for  himself.  The  Com 
mittee  seek  his  motives — I  did  not. 

Upon  the  foregoing  statement  of  facts,  the  Com 
mittee  remark  as  follows  : 

' '  It  will  be  observed  that  the  dispatch  does  not  inform  the  Secre 
tary  of  War  that  the  Provost  Marshal  required  legal  advice,  but  was  a 
succinct  statement  of  the  actual  state  of  facts,  and  a  request  that  the 
Secretary  should  direct  what  should  be  done  in  an  emergency  which 
excited  the  apprehensions  of  the  friends  of  the  government.  In  the 
opinion  of  the  Committee,  Mr.  Conkling  did  only  what  he  was  fully 
justified  in  doing  in  this  matter,  and  there  is  no  evidence  tending, 
however  remotely,  to  show  that  in  sending  the  dispatch  he  was  influ 
enced  by  any  merely  personal  motive. ' ' 

This  extraordinary  commentary  is  of  importance 
here  only  as  indicating  the  system  of  reasoning  which 
enabled  the  Committee  to  arrive  at  the  conclusions 
they  have  reached  on  other  and  more  important  points 
in  this  controversy,  and  for  this  purpose  it  is  noticed. 


64  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

The  Committee  say  "  the  dispatch  does  not  in 
form  the  Secretary  of  War  that  the  Provost  Marshal 
required  legal  advice."  It  is  true,  however,  that  the 
Secretary  of  War  so  understood  it,  and  in  consequence 
of  it,  and  upon  the  instant,  furnished  "  legal  advice." 

It  does  say,  substantially,  that  in  the  absence  of 
"  all  of us"  who  could  aid  the  Provost  Marsh  ^pro 
fessionally  (that  is,  give  him  legal  advice,  the  neces 
sity  for  which  must  be  presumed),  the  Provost  Mar 
shal  was  served  with  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  The 
inference  is,  that  if  the  persons  meant  by  "all  of  us" 
had  not  been  absent,  the  writ  would  not  have  issued  ; 
or,  if  it  had  issued,  some  one  or  'more  of  "  all  of  us  " 
would  have  rendered  professional  assistance — that  isr 
.given  needed  legal  advice.  But  now  one  of  us  has  re 
turned  ;  the  case  has  become  more  important  than  be 
fore,  because,  having  had  no  counsel  to  advise  him,  the 
Provost  Marshal  disobeyed  the  writ,  and  an  attach 
ment  having  issued  against  his  person,  he  now  needs 
legal  advice  more  than  ever.  The  District  Attorney 
and  his  assistant  are  both  absent.  I,  a  lawyer,  one 
"who  could  aid  him  professionally/'  as  you  will  see 
by  this  dispatch,  am  here  on  the  spot.  "  What  shall 
we  do  ? " 

The  Secretary  of  War  understood  this  language, 
and  I,  in  fact,  merely  adopted  the  Secretary's  con 
struction,  which  construction  Mr.  ConMing,  by  accept 
ing  the  retainer  and  performing  the  duties  it  enjoined, 
adopted,  corroborated  and  confirmed. 

The  Committee  say,  "  Mr.  Conkling  did  only  what 
he  was  fully  *  justified  in  doing,' "  and  then  proceed  to 
defend  his  motive  in  sending  the  dispatch. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  65 

As  before  said,  I  had  not  questioned  either  the 
right  or  propriety  of  Mr.  'Colliding  to  use  all  honorable 
means  to  procure  professional  employment,  and  had  in 
no  way  assailed  his  motives  in  this  particular  instance. 
The  offensive  phrase  is  "  that  he  made  a  case  for 
himself.''  Does  the  Committee  pretend  that  anybody 
understood  the  meaning  to  be  that  Mr.  Conkling  manu 
factured  the  case  for  the  sake  of  receiving  employ 
ment?  Certainly  .not.  Even  Mr.  Conkling^  argu 
ment  does  not  claim  that.  All  that  is  said,  and  all 
that  is  meant  is,  that  a  case, having  arisen,  he  notified 
the  person  who  was  authorized  to  employ  counsel,  on 
account  of  which  notification  he  was  employed,  and 
thus  u  made  a  case  for  himself,"  and  in  no  other  sense 
can  this  phraseology,  which  the  Committee  style  the 
charge,  be  construed. 

The  next  statement  of  the  Committee's  "Report  is 
as  follows : 

'kln  April,  1865,  Mr.  Charles  A.  Dana,  then  Assistant  Secretary 
of  War.  without  notifying  me,  had  Mr.  Conkling  appointed  to  investi 
gate  all  frauds  in  enlistments  in  western  New  York,  with  the  stipula 
tion  that  he  should  be  commissioned  Judge  Advocate  for  the  prosecu 
tion  of  any  cases  brought  to  trial,  and  he  was  appointed  to  prosecute 
before  a  General  Court  Martial  Major  J.  A.  Haddock. 

' '  Mr.  Dana  vested  him,  by  several  orders  issued  in  the  name  of 
the  Secretary  of  War,  without  the  sanction  of  Mr.  ktanton,  with  the 
most  extraordinary  powers.  Among  these  was  the  right  to  examine 
the  dispatches  in  all  the  telegraph  offices  in  the  western  division  of 
New  York,  which  enabled  a  violation  of  the  sanctity  of  personal  and 
business  correspondence. 

' '  In  another  part  of  the  letter  Mr.  Dana  is  spoken  of  as  the  friend 
of  Mr.  Conkling  ;  and  the  Committee  understand  the  imputation  of  this 
portion  of  the  letter  to  be,  that  Mr.  Dana,  of  his  own  motion,  without 
notice  to  General  Fry^  and  without  the  sanction  of  the  Secretary  of 
War,  and  by  some  management  or  understanding  between  Mr.  Dana 
and  Mr.  Conkling,  appointed  Mr.  Conkling  to  investigate  frauds  in  en- 


66 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FEY    CONTROVERSY. 


listments  in  western  New  York,  and  vested  him  with  extraordinary 
powers." 

Here  again  the  Committee  substitute  their  under 
standing  for  the  statements  actually  made. 

The  Resolution  of  the  House  raising  the  Commit 
tee,  directs  them  "to  inquire  into  the  ''statements'1  of 
General  Fry's  letter."  The  Committee  did  not  do 
this ;  if  they  had,  the  statements  would  have  been 
found  substantially  correct.  But  they  attributed  to 
the  statements  a  meaning  never  intended  by  me,  and 
not  justified  by  the  language  used,  and  then  pro 
nounced  the  statements  false,  because,  as  they  say,  the 
testimony  does  not  prove  this  meaning. 

As  the  House  ordered  the  "  statements "  them 
selves  to  be  inquired  into,  the  Committee's  under 
standing  need  be  neither  admitted  nor  denied  ;  but  if, 
upon  examination  of  the  "  statements,"  the  proof 
sustains  them,  the  fact  that  the  Committee  understand 
me  to  say  something  else,  does  not  make  it  necessary 
for  me  to  prove  what  I  never  said. 

I  did  say  that : 

"In  April,  1865,  Mr.  Charles  A.  Dana,  then  Assistant  Sec 
retary  of  War,  without  notifying  me,  had  Mr.  Conkling  appointed 
to  investigate  all  frauds  in  enlistments  in  western  New  York, 
with  the  stipulation  that  he  should  be  commissioned  Judge  Advo 
cate  for  the  prosecution  of  any  cases  brought  to  trial,  and  he  was 
so  appointed  to  prosecute  before  a  General  Court  Martial  Major  J.  A. 
Haddock.  Mr.  Dana  vested  him  (Mr.  Conkling}  by  several  orders  issued 
in  the  name  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  without  the  sanction  of  Mr. 
Stanton,  with  the  most  extraordinary  powers.  Among  these  was  the 
right  to  examine  the  dispatches  in  all  the  telegraph  offices  in  the  west 
ern  division  of  New  York,  which  enabled  a  violation  of  the  sanctity  of 
personal  and  business  correspondence. ' ' 

Is  the  statement  true  ? 

Now,  as  to  the  first  point,  did  Mr.  Dana  have  Mr. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  67 

Conkling  appointed?  A  series  of  letters  from  Mr. 
Conkling  to  Mr.  Dana,  touching  the  Utica  office,  is  in 
evidence.  All  papers  relating  to  Mr.  Conkling  were 
signed  by  Mr.  Dana.  Mr.  Dana  was  present  in 
person  at  the  Haddock  Court  Martial,  and  when  I  was 
called  by  Mr.  Dana  to  his  office  in  Washington  in  ref 
erence  to  the  frauds,  I  found  Mr.  Conkling  present.  On 
Sunday,  Mr.  Dana  and  Mr.  Conkling  were  consulting  in 
Mr.  Dana's  office.  Mr.  Conkling  was  writing  to  Mr. 
Dana — not  to  the  Secretary  of  War — his  opinion  of 
me,  and  the  well-known  intimate  personal  and  political 
relations  existing  between  Mr.  Conkling  and  Mr.  Dana 
produced  the  impression  on  my  mind  that  Mr.  Dana 
had  exerted  himself  to  secure  the  appointment  of  Mr. 
Conkling  to  investigate  the  frauds  in  western  New 
York,  particularly  as  the  officers  appointed  on  Mr. 
Conkling'' s  recommendation  were  implicated  in  these 
frauds,  and  Mr.  Conkling  was  seeking  the  restoration 
of  officers  who  had  been  suspended  from  duty. 

Now,  as  to  the  second  point  in  the  statement,  did 
I  have  notice  of  Mr.  Conkling  s  appointment  to  inves 
tigate  all  frauds  in  enlistment  in  western  New  York  ? 
The  Committee  say  (page  5*)  that  it  appears  from  the 
testimony  of  Dana  that  I  did ;  but,  on  referring  to 
Danas  testimony,  it  will  be  seen  that  he  states  (page 
107)  as  follows : 

"  General  Fry  was  informed  by  me  that  the  Secretary   of  War 
had  employed  Mr.  Gonkling  to  prosecute  Major  Haddock. ' ' 

There  is  no  statement  in  the  testimony  of  Dana, 

*  The  page  references  throughout  this  review  of  the  Committee's  Re 
port  are  to  the  Pub.  Doc.,  House  of  Eep. ,  Thirty-ninth  Congress,  First  Ses- 


68  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FEY    CONTROVERSY. 

or  any  other  witness,  that  I  was  notified  that  Colliding 
had  been  appointed  "  to  investigate  all  cases  of  fraud 
^n  western  New  York  and  all  misdemeanors  connected 
with  recruiting"  nor  that  he  was  authorized,  in  the 
language  of  the  Committee  (page  5),  "to  prefer 
charges  or  proofs  against  others  besides  Major  Had 
dock"  All  that  Dana  testifies  to,  on  this  point,  is, 
that  he  informed  me  that  Conkling  had  been  author 
ized  to  prosecute  Haddock.  He  does  not  pretend  that 
he  notified  me  that  Conkling  had  been  appointed  to 
investigate  all  cases  of  fraud  and  misdemeanor  in 
western  New  York.  And  his  answer,  when  ques 
tioned  on  that  point,  shows  that  I  was  not  notified  of 
that  appointment,  for  he  says:  " There  was  never  any 
occasion  to  make  it  known  ;  I  gave  General  Fry  the 
Secretary's  orders  to  him ;  there  was  no  occasion  to 
inform  General  Fry  what  other  orders  the  Secretary 
had  directed  me  to  give"  (page  117).  Nor  do  I  state 
that  Conkling  was  appointed  to  prosecute  Haddock 
without  notice  to  me,  but  my  language  is,  "  without 
notifying  me,  Mr.  Conkling  was  appointed  to  investi 
gate  all  frauds  in  enlistments  in  western  New  York." 
(See  written  authority  of  April  3,  page  3.) 

It  was  this  general  authority  to  investigate  the 
affairs  of  my  bureau  in  western  New  York  which  I 
said  was  conferred  without  notifying  me.  I  did  not 
deny  being  informed  "that  the  Secretary  of  War  had 
employed  Conkling  to  prosecute  Major  Haddock" 
That  appointment  was  announced  in  printed  orders 
and  was  known  to  all  concerned.  The  very  point 
which  made  the  case  peculiar,  was,  that  I  was  notified 
that  Mi-.  Conkling  was  to  prosecute  Haddock,  but  was 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  69 

left  in  ignorance  of  the  much  greater  power  conferred 
upon  him  to  investigate  all  frauds,  etc.,  in  western 
New  York. 

The  next  point  in  this  statement  is,  that  the 
appointment  contained  "  a  stipulation  that  Conkling 
should  be  commissioned  Judge  Advocate  for  the 
prosecution  of  any  cases  brought  to  trial,  and  he  was 
appointed  to  prosecute  before  a  General  Court  Mar 
tial  Major  J.  A.  Haddock.'1'1 

It  is  believed  that  this  portion  of  the  letter  is 
not  disputed  by  the  Committee.  Its  truth  is  appar 
ent  from  an  inspection  of  the  written  appointment 
itself,  and  Mr.  Stanton  set  out  a  copy  of  the  appoint 
ment  in  his  testimony  (page  124),  yet  the  Committee 
branded  my  statement  as  false  in  that  part  of  their  re 
port  in  which  they  say  none  of  the  charges  have  any 
foundation  in  truth. 

The  next  point  in  my  statement  is,  that  Mr.  Dana 
vested  Mr.  Conkling,  aby  several  orders  issued  in  the 
name  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  without  the  sanction 
of  Mr.  Stanton,  with  the  most  extraordinary  powers," 
and  the  following  are  referred  to : 

"WAR  DEPARTMENT, 

"  Washington  City,  April  3,  1865. 

"  Hon.  Roscoe  Conkling  having  been  appointed  by  the  Secretary  of 
War  to  investigate  transactions  connected  with  recruiting  in  the  west 
ern  division  of  New  York,  all  telegraph  companies  and  operators  are  re 
spectfully  requested  to  afford  him  access  to  any  dispatches  which  he 
may  require  for  the  purpose  of  detecting  frauds  and  bringing  criminals 
to  trial. 

' '  By  order  of  the  SECRETARY  OF  WAR  : 

(Signed)  "  C.  A.  DANA, 

' '  Assistant  Secretary  of  War. ' ' 

The  Committee  say  I  had  no  foundation  in  truth 


70 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


for  saying  that  these  powers  were  extraordinary,  and 
were  conferred  without  the  sanction  of  the  Secretary 
of  War.  The  Committee  have  decided  that  the  whole 
of  Mr.  ConMing^s  duty  was  to  act  as  Judge  Advocate 
in  the  trial  of  Major  Haddock.^  This  was  while  the 
war  was  still  going  on,  at  a  period  when  the  telegraph 
was  controlled  by  the  Government,  and  when  a  re 
quest  in  relation  to  it  from  the  War  Department  was 
intended  and  received  as  an  order,  just  as  a  request 
would  be  for  an  engine  or  a  train  on  a  railroad  of 
which  the  Government  had  taken  possession.  Would 
the  request  in  either  case  be  refused  ?  Mr.  Sttmton, 
the  Secretary  of  War,  says  (page  123)  :  "  If  the  appli 
cation  had  been  necessary,  I  should  have  given  him  an 
order  authorizing  him  to  seize  upon  any  information 
or  dispatches  that  would  have  enabled  him  to  detect 
the  frauds  in  recruiting,  the '  bounty  jumping,  etc., 
that  were  depleting  our  army."  That  is  to  say,  if  Mr. 
Stanton  had  thought  more  authority  "necessary,"  he 
would  have  granted  it. 

But  the  Committee  construed  this  written  au 
thority  to  be  simply  "  an  authority  to  request "  (page 
118),  from  which  it  must  follow  that,  if  Mr.  Colliding 
had  not  received  it,  he  would  have  had  no  right  to  re 
quest  the  telegraph  operators  to  show  him  dispatches ; 
but,  having  received  it,  he  was  clothed  with  authority 
that  empowered  him  to  ask  a  favor,  which  the  party 
asked  was  at  liberty  to  refuse.  This  is  sheer  nonsense. 
The  War  Department  did  not  resort  to  dodges  of  that 
sort.  Could  not  he  have  " requested"  in  that  meaning 
of  the  term,  as  well  without  the  authority  as  with  it  ? 

f  But  Mr.   Conkling'1  s  services  as  Special   Judge  Advocate  were  ren 
dered  after  the  war  had  closed. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  71 

But  was  it  extraordinary,  or  was  it  the  ordinary, 
authority  given  to  a  Judge  Advocate  ?  I  termed  it 
"  extraordinary,"  and  the  Committee  say  my  statement 
is  false. 

I  did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  bring  proof  before 
the  Committee  on  this  point,  but  the  assertion  is  ven 
tured  that  the  records  of  the  War  Department  do  not 
show  a  similar  delegation  of  authority  to  any  person. 

But  suppose  this  all  to  be  untrue,  and  that  it  had 
been  the  rule  of  Mr.  Stanton  to  delegate  this  author 
ity,  would  it  not  still  be  an  extraordinary  power,  so 
far  as  it  related  to  everybody  else,  and  only  justifiable, 
if  at  all,  by  the  condition  of  the  country  at  that 
period  ?  And  was  it  not  truthfully  styled  "  extraor 
dinary  "  ? 

Is  it  claimed  that  the  people  of  the  loyal  state 
of  New  York,  remote  from  the  seat  of  war,  protected 
by  the  provision  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  which  guarantees  that  "  the  right  of  the  peo 
ple  to  be  secure  in  their  persons,  houses,  papers  and 
effects  against  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures, 
shall  not  be  violated,"  are  liable  to  have  their  private 
correspondence  examined  and  confidential  messages 
read  by  the  agents  of  the  War  Department,  except,  if 
at  all,  upon  "  extraordinary "  occasions,  or  for  some 
"  extraordinary  "  cause  ?  Does  not  the  observation  of 
every  man  teach  him  that  this  power  is  most  extraor 
dinary,  even  if  it  had  been  exercised  habitually  by 
Mr.  Stanton,  or  any  other  officer  during  his  official 
career  ? 

The  Committee  say  I  falsified  in  saying  this  was 
"  without  the  sanction  of  Mr.  Stanton"  The  only  tes- 


72 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


timony  on  this  point  is  Mr.  Skmton's,  as  follows  (page 
123):  "In  regard  to  the  two  other  papers — one  in 
relation  to  telegraph  companies,  and  the  other  in  re 
gard  to  Provost  Marshals —those  are  authorities 
which  I  do  not  remember  to  have  seen,  until  I  saw 
them  in  this  publication." — (Daily  Globe,  May  1, 
1866.) 

If,  then,  Mr.  Stanton  did  not  even  see  these  orders 
for  more  than  a  year  after  their  issue,  although  he  may 
have  subsequently  approved  them,  is  it  not  true  that 
they  were  issued  without  Mr.  Stanton }s  sanction,  just 
as  I  stated  ? 

But  my  statements,  and  the  Committee's  under 
standing  of  them,  are  very  different  things.  At  the 
beginning  of  the  investigation,  I  knew  what  "  the 
statements"  were,  but  the  Committee  did  not,  until 
its  report  was  published,  favor  me  with  their  under 
standing  of  them ;  and  the  subtile  and  unusual  char 
acter  of  that  understanding  will  justify  me  in  not  hav 
ing  anticipated  it.  Such  proofs,  therefore,  as  I  intro 
duced  were  directed  to  the  statements,  and  not  to  the 
construction  the  Committee  put  upon  them  after  the 
investigation  closed. 

But  as  to  the  construction  just  quoted.  The 
Committee  say  (page  3):  "  In  another  part  of  the  letter 
Mr.  Dana  is  spoken  of  as  the  friend  of  Mr.  Gonkling  ; 
and  the  Committee  understand  the  imputation  of  this 
portion  of  the  letter  to  be,  that  Mr.  Dana,  of  his  own 
motion,  without  notice  to  General  Fry,  and  without 
the  sanction  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  by  some 
management  or  understanding  between  Mr.  Dana  and 
Mr.  Conkling,  appointed  Mr.  Conkling  to  investigate 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


73 


frauds  in  enlistments  in  western  New  York,  and 
vested  him  with  extraordinary  powers." 

An  examination  of  the  letter  itself  is  the  true 
test  of  its  meaning.  In  the  entire  letter  there  is  no 
word,  phrase,  or  sentence  that  can  be  tortured  into 
such  interpretation  as  the  Committee,  in  the  exercise 
of  their  understanding,  have  seen  fit  to  adopt,  and 
on  which  they  base  an  allegation  of  untruthfulness 
on  my  part. 

The  letter  does  not  state  that  "Mr.  Dana  ap 
pointed  Mr.  Colliding  on  his  own  motion,"  nor  is  it 
susceptible  of  that  construction ;  nor  does  it  state,  in 
terms  or  by  implication,  that  "  Mr.  Dana,  without 
the  sanction  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  appointed  Mr. 
Conklwg" 

On  the  other  hand,  the  language  of  the  letter  is, 
that  "  Mr.  Dana  had  him  appointed"  that  is,  through 
the  representations  and  ministrations  of  Mr.  Dana,  tlie 
Secretary  of  War  appointed  hirr.  If  I  had  intended 
to  convey  the  meaning  which  the  Committee  state  as 
their  understanding,  I  would  have  used  language  to 
that  effect.  If  I  had  meant  to  say  that  "  Mr.  Dana 
appointed  Mr.  Conklvng"  I  would  not  have  said,  "  Mr. 
Dana  had  Mr.  Gonkling  appointed,"  which  means  that 
some  one  else  appointed  him.  If  I  had  meant  to  say 
that  "Mr.  Dana  appointed  Mr.  Conkling?  I  would 
not  have  accompanied  the  statement  with  a  copy  of 
the  appointment  itself,  bearing  on  its  face  the  fact 
that  the  Secretary  of  War  appointed  Mr.  Gonkling. 

Yet  the  Committee  understand  that  I  said,  "  Mr. 
Dana,  on  his  own  motion,  and  without  the  sanction  of 
the  Secretary  of  War,  appointed  Mr.  Conkling"  and 


/4  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

because  I  did  not  anticipate  this  understanding,  and  at 
tempt  to  prove  it  true,  they  decide  that  I  failed  to 
prove  what  I  did  say,  and  then  they  proceed  to  char 
acterize  "  the  conduct  of  an  officer  in  sending  a  letter 
to  be  read  in  the  House  which  reflects  upon  an  honor 
able  member." 

In  the  paragraph  of  the  letter  in  which  it  is  al 
leged  that  "Mr.  Dana  had  Mr.  Conkling  appointed,"  I 
did  say  that  "  Mr.  Dana  vested  Mr.  Conkling  with  ex 
traordinary  powers,"  and  that  this  was  done  "  without 
the  sanction  of  the  Secretary  of  War,"  and  the  testi 
mony  fully  sustains  this  statement,  but  I  never  said 
that  "Dana,  on  his  own  motion,"  or  "  without  the  sanc 
tion  of  the  Secretary  of  War,"  or  "  by  some  manage 
ment  or  understanding  between  Mr.  Dana  and  Mr. 
Conkling"  appointed  Mr.  Conkling  to  investigate 
frauds  in  western  New  York ;  and  the  language  used 
does  not  admit  of  any  such  meaning  or  interpretation. 

The  Committee  next  proceed  to  discuss  that  para 
graph  of  the  letter  in  which  it  is  stated  that  Mr.  Conk 
ling  "was  as  zealous  in  preventing  prosecutions  at 
Utica  as  in  making  them  at  Elmira."  As  "  specifica 
tions  "  to  this  charge,  the  Committee  assume  three 
statements  made  in  the  letter.  It  is  not  strange  that 
the  Committee  should  deem  an  explanation  of  this 
assumption  necessary,  and  they  try  to  put  it  in  the 
form  of  an  argument  by  saying,  "  the  words,  as  here 
after  shown,  as  they  appear  in  connection  in  General 
Fry's  letter,  that  Mr.  Conkling  was  as  zealous  in  pre 
venting  prosecutions  at  Utica  as  in  making  them  at 
Elmira,  must  refer  to  the  three  specifications  above 
given,  because,  unless  shown  in  one  or  the  other  of  these 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FEY  CONTROVERSY.  75 

specifications,  it  is  not  shown  at  all  in  General  Fry^s 
letter,"  etc. 

The  truth  is,  that  the  facts  contained  in  the  three 
statements  referred  to  formed  a  part  of  the  evidence 
on  which  the  charge  of  zeal  in  preventing  prosecutions 
was  made ;  but  they  were  not  shaped  in  the  letter  to 
support  that  charge,  and  had  weight  in  doing  so  only 
so  far  as  they  might  be  considered  in  connection  with 
other  facts,  especially  the  documents  which  accom 
panied  my  letter,  as  was  shown  to  the  Committee  dur 
ing  the  investigation,  and  by  the  summing  up  of  coun 
sel. 

The  manner  in  which  the  Committee  weighed 
them  will  be  noticed  further  on ;  but  here  let  us  no 
tice  these  specifications  as  they  were  used  in  the  letter. 
Here  they  are,  with  the  statements  which  immediately 
precede  and  follow  them  : 

"As  to  the  animus  of  Mr.  Conkling's  calumnious  assault  on  me,  it 
is  true,  notwithstanding  his  assertion  that  he  had  no  personal  quarrel 
with  me,  that  the  differences  between  him  and  myself  arose  altogether 
from  my  unwillingness  to  gratify  him  in  certain  matters  in  which  he 
had  a  strong  personal  interest.  It  is  true,  also,  that  he  was  foiled  in 
his  efforts  to  obtain  undue  concessions  from  my  Bureau,  and  to  dis 
credit  me  in  the  eyes  of  my  superiors. 

' '  There  have  been  three  main  issues  between  Mr.  ConJding  and 
myself.  The  first  arose  in  consequence  of  the  removal  of  Captain  Rich 
ardson,  (the  first  Provost  Marshal  of  Mr.  Conkling's  district),  upon  a 
report  of  Judge  Advocate  Turner  that  the  proofs  in  his  case  disclosed  a 
reckless  persistence  in  fraudulent  practices.  Mr.  Conkling  complained 
of  my  action,  both  to  the  President  and  War  Department,  but failed 
to  procure  any  modification  of  my  course. 

• '  The  second  issue  was,  as  to  the  restoring  of  Captain  Crandall 
(the  second  Provost  Marshal  of  the  district),  after  I  had  secured  his  re 
moval  from  duty,  on  the  recommendation  of  Major  Luddington,  who 
thoroughly  inspected  the  district,  and  reported  that,  though  not  legally 
guilty,  he  had  morally  perpetrated  a  most  glaring  and  inexcusable 
fraud  on  the  government  he  was  sworn  to  serve,  and  that  he  had  quieted 


7  6  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

his  conscience  by  casuistry,  and  regulated  his  actions  by  the  counsel 
of  unscrupulous  legal  advisers.  Mr.  Conkling  failed  to  get  Captain 
Grandall  restored,  and  the  officer  selected  ~by  me  continued  in  charge  of  the 
business  until  the  office  was  closed. 

"  The  third  issue  was  as  to  the  government  employing  counsel  to 
defend  Captain  Crandall,  after  he  had  been  relieved  and  had  carried 
away  with  him,  in  violation  of  the  orders  of  the  Department,  some 
twenty  thousand  dollars  local  bounty,  deposited  with  him  in  behalf  of 
recruits,  and  in  regard  to  which  he  had  got  into  litigation.  In  this  Mr. 
Conkling  failed.  Counsel  has  not,  to  my  knowledge,  been  employed, 
nor  have  any  lawyers  been  paid  by  the  government  in  that  suit. 

' '  In  support  of  his  denial  of  differences  with  me  which  influenced 
his  action,  Mr.  Conkling  states  the  fact  that  we  had  but  one  personal 
interview.  That  is  true ;  but  it  proves  the  reverse  of  what  Mr.  Corik- 
ling  asserts,  etc. 

"Notwithstanding  Mr.  Conkling's  denial  in  the  House,  his  own 
letters,  as  well  as  the  foregoing  statements,  sJww  that  there  were  differences, 
and  that  he  was  worsted." 

No  fair-minded  man  can  read  my  letter,  from 
which  the  above  quotation  of  consecutive  parts  is 
made,  and  not  admit  I  enumerate  in  it  the  "  foregoing 
statements"  in  support  of  my  assertion,  that  Mr. 
Conkling  and  I  had  liad  differences  in  ^vhich  lie,  Mr. 
Conkling,  did  not  succeed.  Besides  being  thus  mani 
fest  on  the  face  of  the  paper,  the  fact  appeared  in  the 
investigation,  and  was  dwelt  upon  by  my  counsel  in 
his  summing  up.  Yet  the  Committee  not  only  fail  to 
apply  these  statements  to  the  charge  of  differences, 
which  was  the  issue  in  the  House  between  Mr.  Blaine 
and  Mr.  Conkling,  but  misapply  them  as  the  sole 
proof  of  another  charge,  and  then  pronounce  that 
charge  false.  The  Committee  admitted  testimony 
upon,  and  pass  over  that  charge  in  support  of  which 
they  were  offered;  and  while  they  did  not,  and 
could  not,  deny  the  truth  of  the  statements  them 
selves,  or  that  they  sustained  that  charge,  they  have 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


77 


diverted  them  from  it  and  applied  them  as  the 
sole  support  of  another  charge,  and  then  say,  "the 
specifications  signally  fail  to  bear  out  that  charge," 
and  report  that  they  have  "  fully  and  carefully "  ex 
amined  them,  arid  are  of  opinion  that  none  of  the 
charges  in  General  Fry* 8  letter  "  have  any  foundation 
in  truth."  And  this  passed  for  logic  and  fair  dealing 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  censure  was 
based  upon  it. 

But  let  us  pass  on  to  an  examination  in  more  de 
tail  of  this  part  of  the  Report  based  on  the  Commit 
tee's  premises. 

The  charge  is,  that  "Mr.  ConHing  prevented 
prosecutions  at  Utica."  How  could  this  be  proved  ? 

It  had  first  to  be  shown  that  there  were  frauds 
or  misdemeanors  committed  there  which  were  subjects 
for  prosecution. 

By  reference  to  the  Report  (page  154)  it  will  be 
seen  that  T  was  only  permitted  by  the  Committee  to 
prove  such  frauds  as  came  to  the  knowledge  of  Mr. 
Corikling  and  had  not  been  reported  to  the  War  Depart 
ment.  Consequently  proof  of  all  the  frauds  which  had 
been  reported  to  me  officially  was  ruled  out. 

Continuing  with  the  Report,  it  is  stated  by  the 
Committee  that  "  the  prosecution  of  Captain  Richard 
son  was  a  matter  with  which  Mr.  Conkling  had  noth 
ing  to  do." 

Captain  Richardson  had  been  dismissed  in  ac 
cordance  with  the  following  recommendation  from 
the  Judge  Advocate  General's  Office : 

"WAR  DEPARTMENT, 

Washington  City,  December  21,  1864. 
General : — 

I  have  the  honor  to  return  to  you  the  papers  in  the  case  of  Captain 


78  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

Richardson,  Provost  Marshal  Twenty-First  District,  New  York,  and  re 
spectfully  recommend  that  said  Richardson  be  at  once  arrested  and  held 
in  custody  for  trial  by  Court  Martial.  The  proofs  in  this  case  disclose  a 
reckless  persistency  in  fraudulent  practices  that  not  only  demand  his 
arrest  and  trial,  but  also  a  complete  renovation  in  the  office  of  said  dis 
trict.  ************ 
I  am,  General,  very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 
(Signed)  L,  C.  TURNER, 

Judge  Advocate. 
Brigadier  General,  JAMES  B.  FRY, 

Provost  Marshal  General." 

Whereupon  Mr.  Conkling  wrote  to  the  President 
the  letter,  found  on  page  46  of  the  Report,  complain 
ing  of  my  action  in  dismissing  Richardson.  On  the 
subject  of  this  letter  the  Committee  say  (page  7)  : 

"  No  complaint  is  made  in  the  letter  against  General  Fry  ty  name, 
or  ~by  special  reference. " 

The  letter  states  (page  146)  that  "the  Provost 
Marshal  (Richardson)  received  an  order  through  Ma 
jor  Haddock  from  General  Fry,  informing  him  that, 
by  order  of  the  President,  he  had  been  dismissed  the 
service,"  and  then  goes  on  to  say,  "the  point  I  want 
to  submit  is,  his  being  thus  summarily  disgraced 
without  knowledge  of  the  ground,  and  without  being 
heard,"  thus  complaining  directly  of  "  General  Fry" 
and  naming  him.  How,  then,  can  the  Committee  say, 
"  no  complaint  is  made  in  the  letter  against  General 
Fry  by  name,  or  by  special  reference  "  ? 

It  will  be  remembered  that  this  was  during  the 
time  the  case  was  undergoing  examination  with  a  view 
to  the  trial  of  Richardson,  and  without  Mr.  Conkling 's 
opinion  being  solicited,  he  very  frankly  assured  the 
President  that,  "  in  common  wTith  others,  I  (Mr.  Conk 
ling)  have  kept  a  pretty  close  watch  upon  Captain 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  79 

Richardson,    and  I  have  never  discovered  any  corrupt 
practice  in  him" 

Richardson  was  not  tried  by  Court  Martial.  The 
case  was  sent  to  the  District  Attorney,  and,  in  a  writ 
ten  order  from  the  War  Department,  after  being  au 
thorized  to  investigate  all  cases  of  fraud  in  the  western 
division  of  New  York,  Mr.  Colliding  was  invested 
with  the  following  :  "  You  will  also  appear  in  behalf 
of  the  Department  in  any  case  that  it  may  be  deemed 
more  expedient  to  bring  before  the  civil  tribunals." 
(See  page  154.) 

Thus  much  has  been  said  in  reply  to  what  the 
Committee  have  reported  in  reference  to  the  first  of  the 
three  specifications,  or  the  one  referring  to  Richardson. 

Now,  what  I  actually  said  was — in  referring  to 
the  issues  I  had  had  with  Mr.  Conkling — "the  first 
arose  in  consequence  of  the  removal  of  Captain  Rich' 
ardson  (the  ^first  Provost  Marshal  of  Mr.  Conkling'' s 
district),  upon  a  report  of  Judge  Advocate  Turner, 
that  the  proofs  in  his  cases  disclosed  a  reckless  persist 
ence  in  fraudulent  practices.  Mr.  Conkling  complained 
of  my  action,  both  to  the  President  and  War  Depart 
ment,  but  failed  to  procure  any  modification  of  my 
course." 

The  only  question  of  fact  here  is,  did  Mr.  Oonfc- 
ling  complain  to  the  President  and  to  the  War  Depart 
ment  because  of  the  removal  of  Richardson,  and  did 
he  fail  to  procure  a  modification  of  the  course  pursued 
by  me  in  that  particular  case  ?  These  questions  are 
clearly  determined  in  the  affirmative  by  the  evidence. 

But  referring  to  the  Committee's  Report,  and  to 
my  charge  that  Mr.  Conkling  was  zealous  in  prevent- 


80  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

ing  prosecutions  at  Utica,  if  he  did  not  desire  to  pre 
vent  a  prosecution  of  Richardson,  he  certainly  does 
not,  in  this  letter  to  the  President,  recommend  any 
trial  or  other  investigation  ;  nor  does  he  say  one  word 
that  can  be  interpreted  to  mean  that  he,  in  any  man 
ner,  desired  the  trial  of  the  party  on  whom  he  had 
"  kept  a  pretty  close  watch."  Yet  the  commentary  on 
that  letter  by  the  Committee  (page  7)  contains  the  fol 
lowing  :  "  The  main  object  of  the  letter  seems  to  have 
been  to  ask  an  investigation" 

It  is  by  this  system  of  reasoning,  interpretation 
and  misconstruction  that  Mr.  Colliding  is  justified  by 
the  Committee  in  all  he  has  said  and  done,  while  I  re 
ceive  its  opprobrium  and  censure  under  all  circum 
stances. 

The  next  u  specification,"  as  the  Committee  term 
it,  relates  to  Captain  Crandall,  and  is  in  these  words  : 

"  The  second  issue  was  as  to  the  restoring  of  Captain  CrandaU,&fter  I 
had  secured  his  removal  from  duty,  on  the  recommendation  of  Major 
Luddington,  who  thoroughly  inspected  the  district  and  reported  that, 
though  not  legally  guilty,  he  had  morally  perpetrated  most  glaring  and 
inexcusable  frauds  on  the  government,  and  that  he  had  quieted  his  con 
science  by  casuistry,  and  regulated  his  actions  by  the  counsel  of  unscru 
pulous  legal  advisers. 

"Mr.  ConUing  failed  to  get  Captain  Crandall  restored." 

The  only  facts  contained  in  this  statement,  except 
those  which  purported  to  have  been  reported  by  Major 
Luddington,  are  as  follows  : 

1st. — That  there  was  an  issue  between  Mr.  Conic- 
ling  and  me  as  to  Captain  CrandaWs  restoration  to 
office. 

2d. — That  Mr.  Colliding  "failed  to  get  Captain 
Crandall  restored." 

Now  if  any  part  of  this  "  specification  "  be  false, 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-PRY    CONTROVERSY.  81 

as  the  Committee  say,  it  is  either  —first — as  to  what 
Major  Luddington  reported,  or — second — as  to  whether 
Mr.  Conlding  desired  CrandaWs  restoration  and  failed. 
Luddington  s  report  is  published  on  pages  155 
and  156.  The  following  extracts  show  there  can  be 
no  question  as  to  the  truth  of  my  statement  regarding 
what  Luddington  reported : 

"I  respectfully  recommend  that  every  member  of  the  Board  of 
Enrolment  for  Twenty-First  District  of  New  York  be  dismissed  the 
service,  and  that  the  money  in  possession  of  Captain  Crandall  be  seized. 
And  because  of  the  disgraceful  prejudice  existing  among  the  demoral 
ized  people  of  that  district  against  filling  their  quota  with  decent  men, 
thus  preventing  one  of  their  own  citizens  from  doing  his  duty  to  his 
country,  as  well  as  his  county,  that  an  officer  of  the  army  be  detailed  as 
Provost  Marshal  of  that  district.  I  do  not  regard  the  conduct  of  the 
Board  legally  guilty,  but  morally  they  have  perpetrated  a  most  glaring 
and  inexcusable  fraud  on  the  government  they  were  sworn  to  serve. 
They  quieted  their  consciences  by  casuistry,  and  regulated  their  actions 
by  the  counsel  of  unscrupulous  legal  advisers." 

In  his  letter  to  the  War  Department,  dated  April 
3,  1865  (page  44),  Mr.  Conkling  uses  the  following 
language:  "lad  vise  and  recommend  that  the  order 
suspending  Captain  Peter  jE>.  Crandall,  and  the  other 
members  of  the  Enrolling  Board,  be  revoked,  and  that 
said  Board  be  reinstated."  And  see,  also,  his  letter  to 
Mr.  Dana,  of  March  13  (page  48).  This  proves 
that  Mr.  Oonkling  desired  the  restoration  of  Captain 
Crandall,  and  is  further  evidence  in  support  of  my 
charge  concerning  Mr.  Conkling's  zeal  in  preventing 
prosecutions  at  Utica. 

Mr.  Conkling^s  failure  to  secure  the  restoration  of 
Captain  Crandall  is  fully  shown  by  the  testimony  of 
Major  Beadle,  who  succeeded  him  as  Provost  Marshal, 
and  continued  as  such  until  the  office  was  closed.  (See 
page  63.) 


82 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FEY    CONTROVERSY. 


It  therefore  appears  from  the  evidence  that  Mr. 
Conkling  did  desire  the  restoration  of  Captain  Cran- 
dall ;  that  he  failed  to  get  him  restored;  and  that  an 
officer  (Major  Beadle)  selected  by  me  "  continued  in 
charge  of  the  business  until  the  office  was  closed,"  just 
as  stated  in  my  letter.  This  is  clear.  My  statement, 
the  truth  of  which  the  Committee  were  directed  to 
inquire  into,  is  proven  to  be  true,  and  here  the  point 
might  rest,  but  the  purpose  is  to  review  what  the  Com 
mittee  say,  and  to  show  the  error  and  injustice  of 
their  report. 

In  disposing  of  this  second  specification,  the  Com 
mittee  commence  by  saying : 

"  In  relation  to  Captain  Grandall,  no  concealment  was  possible,  for 
the  reason  that  a  full  report  had  been  made  by  Major  Luddington  before 
Mr.  Conkling  is  shown  to  have  had  anything  to  say  or  do  in  reference  to 
Mm.11 

Let  us  see  if  this  is  correct. 

Luddington 's  report  was  made  on  the  31st  of 
March.  On  the  13th  of  March  Captain  Grandall  had 
written  a  defense  of  his  conduct,  which  he  delivered 
to  Mr.  Conkling,  who  had  it  printed  and  circulated. 
See  Conkling' s  testimony,  page  150.  The  letter  itself 
is  printed  on  page  256.  (Also,  see  his  letter,  page  49.) 
On  the  29th  day  of  March,  Mr.  Conkling  had  an  inter 
view  with  Major  Luddington  at  Utica,  while  the  in 
spection  was  being  made,  in  which,  he  testifies,  he  told 
Luddington  "  that  I  thought  the  fullest  investigation 
would  prove  that  Crandall  and  his  associates  were 
honest."  On  the  same  day  he  wrote  to  me  protesting 
against  the  suspension  of  Crandall  (page  49).  On 
the  13th  of  March,  more  than  two  weeks  previous  to 
Luddington' s  inspection,  Mr.  Conkling  forwarded  his 


CONKLING    AND    ELAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  83 

semi-confidential,  but  indignant,  remonstrance  to  Mr. 
Dana,  denouncing  me  for  suspending  Crandall — vouch 
ing  for  the  latter's  integrity,  and  saying  :  "  I  will  be 
personally  responsible  for  him  (^CrandaTF).  The 
charges  you  refer  to  are  infamously  f  alse."(See  page  48.) 
With  all  this  testimony  before  the  Committee,  and 
published  in  their  Report,  they  say  :  "  In  relation  to 
Captain  Crandall,  no  concealment  was  possible,  for 
the  reason  that  a  full  report  had  been  made  by  Major 
Luddington  BEFORE  ME.  CONKLING  is  SHOWN  TO  HAVE 

HAD  ANYTHING  TO  SAY  OR  DO  IN  REFERENCE  TO  HIM." 

The  Committee  further  say  :  "  Surely  Mr.  Conk- 
ling  could  not  be  in  fault  for  not  prosecuting  Crandall, 
when,  as  stated  in  Luddington 's  report,  he  had  incurred 
no  legal  guilt." 

The  logic  of  this  reasoning  is,  that  it  made  no 
difference  to  what  extent  an  investigation  would  ex 
pose  the  guilt  of  Crandall,  he  was  protected  by  Lud- 
dingtoris  report  that  he  was  not  legally  guilty  though 
he  was  so  morally. 

Mr.  ConJcling  was  directed  to  "  investigate  all 
cases  of  frauds  "  in  this  and  every  other  district  in  the 
western  division.  If,  in  the  course  of  that  investiga 
tion  (if  he  had  made  one),  he  had  discovered  frauds 
and  misdemeanors,  for  which  Crandall  should  have 
been  tried  and  convicted,  the  Committee  would  lead  us 
to  suppose  that,because  such  facts  as  came  to  the  knowl 
edge  of  Luddington  did  not,  in  his  opinion,  constitute 
u  legal  guilt,"  such  opinion  was  a  perfect  defense  for 
Orandallj  and  should  defeat  any  prosecution  that 
might  be  instituted.  If  the  Committee  do  not  mean 
this,  why  do  they  say  :  "  Surely  Mr.  Gonkling  could  not 


84 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY 


be  in  fault  for  not  prosecuting  him,  when,  as  stated  in 
Major  Luddington^s  report,  he  had  incurred  no  legal 
guilt "  ?  * 

This  remarkable  corollary  is  immediately  followed 
by  another  no  more  logical,  to  wit :  "  CONSEQUENTLY, 
it  is  not  shown  by  any  evidence  in  relation  to  Captain 
Crandall  that  Mr.  Oonklitig  was  zealous  in  preventing 
prosecutions  at  Utica,  or  desired  concealment  of  any 
frauds  there."  (Page  7.) 

But  the  Committee  were  directed  by  the  House 
to  make  this  investigation.  What  action  does  the 
Report  show  them  to  have  taken  in  regard  to  allega 
tions  against  Captain  Crandall,  and  the  action  of  Mr. 
Conkling  in  preventing  their  prosecution  ? 

On  page  152  it  appears  that  the  Committee  re 
quired  me  to  state  what  I  could  prove  on  this  point. 
Whereupon  a  full  and  distinct  statement  of  proof  was 
offered.  See  Appendix  E. 

And  thereupon  (page  154)  the  Committee  ruled 
as  follows : 

"The  Committee  will  hear  evidence  of  any  frauds  or  misdemeanors 
of  Provost  Marshal  Crandall,  of  which  the  War  Department  did  not 
have  notice,  providing  Mr.  Oonkling  is  shown  to  have  had  knowledge 
thereof.  The  committee  will  hold  that  the  War  Department  did  have 
such  notice  of  all  alleged  frauds  and  misdemeanors  as  are  set  forth  in 
the  papers  from  the  files  of  the  War  Department,  which  have  been 
given  in  evidence  in  this  case. 

"  This  evidence  ia  admitted  on  the  ground  that,  if  after  Mr.  Corik- 

*  In  referring  to  the  reports  made  to  me  concerning  Captain  Crandall, 
and  in  reviewing  the  Report  of  the  Committee,  I  disclaim  making  any 
charge  of  dishonesty  or  dishonorable  conduct  against  Captain  Crandall. 
Probably  his  trouble  arose  partly  if  not  wholly  from  representing  inter 
ests  that  were  more  or  less  conflicting;  as  Provost  Marshal  he  represented 
the  interest  of  the  United  States,  and  as  Clerk  of  the  Board  of  Super 
visors  he  represented  another  interest. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  85 

ling  had  received  his  instructions  from  the  War  Department,  such 
offenses  are  shown  to  have  come  to  his  knowledge,  and  were  never 
communicated  to  the  War  Department,  nor  prosecuted  by  him,  it  may 
have  some  tendency  to  show  omission  of  duty  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Conk- 
ling,  provided  the  Committee  should  find  Mr,  Conkling  had  any  author 
ity  to  prosecute  Captain  Crandall,  the  last  being  a  matter  upon  which 
the  Committee  does  not  now  decide.  The  Committee,  upon  the  same 
principle,  will  not  go  into  evidence  touching  the  alleged  frauds  or  mis 
demeanors  of  Crandall,  when  the  said  papers  from  the  War  Department 
show  that  that  department  had  notice,  during  or  before  the  time  of 
Mr.  Conkling*  s  service,  of  such  alleged  frauds  or  misdemeanors.  This, 
upon  the  ground  that  Mr.  Conkling  could  not  have  been  bound  to  re 
port  facts  already  known  to  the  War  Department,  and  that  he  could 
not  prosecute  military  offenses,  for  the  trial  of  which  the  War  Depart 
ment  had  omitted  to  order  any  competent  tribunal ;  but  the  exclusion 
of  evidence  against  Mr.  Conkling' &  conduct  will  exclude  evidence  in  his 
favor  as  to  the  same  conduct." 

Thus  the  Committee  ruled  out  the  testimony 
offered,  and  in  the  face  of  this,  they  say  (page  8): 

"No  evidence  was  OFFERED  before  the  Committee  showing  or  tending  to 
show  that  Mr.  Crandall  had  been  guilty  of  any  fraud  or  dishonest  practice 
which  ever  came  to  the  knowledge  of  Mr.  Conkling." 

That  is,  they  say,  having  excluded  the  proof 
which  would  establish,  or  tend  to  establish,  frauds,  we 
are  of  opinion,  not  only  that  no  frauds  have  been 
proved,  but  that  no  proof  of  frauds  was  offered. 

The  next  statement  of  the  Report  (page  7)  is  in 
reference  to  the  appointment  of  Captain  Crandall  as 
Provost  Marshal  of  the  Utica  district.  The  Commit 
tee  say,  "  Mr.  Conkling  refused  to  have  anything  to  do 
with  the  selection  or  designation  of  any  individual  for 
that  position." 

On  page  47,  the  Committee  insert  a  letter  written 
by  Mr.  Conkling  to  the  President,  dated  January  11, 
1865,  which  is  as  follows  : 

"  Utica,  New  York,  January  11,  1865. 
SIR: —  ifter   much  consultation  among  our  leading  citizens  in  ref. 


86  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

erence  to  a  suitable  person  to  be  appointed  Provost  Marshal  of  this  (the 
twenty-first)  district,  in  case  it  is  or  has  been  determined  to  appoint  a 
successor  to  Captain  Richardson,  the  prevailing  opinion  points  to  Peter 
B.  Crandall  for  the  place.  He  is  a  thoroughly  honest  man,  and  I  con 
cur  in  recommending  his  appointment. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  your  obed't  servant. 
The  President.  (Signed)  ROSCOE  CONKLING. ' ' 

Mr.  Crandall  was  appointed  on  the  14th  of  the 
same  month,  and  immediately  entered  upon  the  dis 
charge  of  his  duties. 

In  the  letter  of  Captain  Crandall^  which  Mr. 
Colliding,  in  his  letter  to  me,  dated  March  29,  1865, 
thus  refers  to  :  "I  have  the  honor  to  hand  you,  here 
with,  letters  from  Captain  Crandall  and  Commissioner 
Monroe,  addressed  to  me,  which  I  have  caused  to  be 
printed,  etc.,"  the  following  statement  is  made  (page 
256)  :  "  On  the  23d  day  of  January,  1865,  1  received 
a  commission,  bearing  date  January  14,  appointing  me 
Provost  Marshal  of  the  Twenty-First  District  of  the 
State  of  New  York.  This  appointment  I  owe  to  your 
kindness,  and  to  the  favorable  opinion  entertained  of 
me  by  yourself,  etc" 

Thus,  having  before  them  the  letter  of  Mr.  Conk- 
ling,  the  Member  of  Congress  of  the  District,  to  the 
President,  recommending  Mr.  Crandall,  dated  January 
11,  and  the  evidence  of  Captain  Crandall  that  he 
was  appointed  on  the  14th  of  the  same  month,  with 
the  further  statement  that  he  was  indebted  to  Mr. 
Gonkling  for  such  appointment,  the  Committee  are  of 
opinion  that  Mr.  Colliding  refused  to  have  "  anything 
to  do  with  the  selection  or  designation  of  any  individ 
ual  for  that  position." 

The  next  statement  is  as  follows  : 

"  The  Committee  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  evidence  does  not 


CONKLING   AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  O  ( 

show  that  Mr.  Conkling  was  guilty  of  any  impropriety  in  recommend 
ing  the  restoration  of  Captain  Crandall  after  Major  Luddington's  report, 
but  on  the  contrary,  it  does  appear  that  his  action  was  limited  to  a 
simple  expression  of  opinion,  which  opinion  was  concurred  in  very  gen 
erally  by  the  citizens  of  that  district,  and  supported  by  the  report  of  the 
detective  selected  by  General  Fry  to  investigate  the  acts  of  Captain 
Crandall.  It  has  not  been  shown  to  the  Committee  that  General  Fry  or 
any  other  person  believed  that  Captain  Crandall  should  have  been  pros 
ecuted.  Mr.  Dana  testifies  to  the  statement  of  General  Fry  that  he 
knew  nothing  which  Captain  Crandall  had  done  or  omitted  which  he 
should  not  have  done  or  omitted. ' ' 

Major  Luddington  reported  as  follows  : 

"I  respectfully  recommend  that  every  member  of  the  Board  of 
Enrolment  for  Twenty-First  District  of  New  York,  be  dismissed  the  ser 
vice,  and  that  the  money  in  possession  of  Captain  Crandall  be  seized. 

*****  Morally  they  have  perpetrated  a  most 
glaring  and  inexcusable  fraud  on  the  government  they  were  sworn 
to  serve.  They  quieted  their  consciences  by  casuistry,  and  regulated 
their  actions  by  the  counsel  of  unscrupulous  legal  advisers." 

Mr.  Conkling,  on  the  day  that  he  first  saw  this 
report,  wrote  to  the  War  Department  as  follows  : 

*         *         *         *  "I  advise  and  recommend  that    the  order 

suspending   Captain  Peter  B.  Crandall  and   the  other  members  of  the 
Enrolment  Board  be  revoked,  and  that  said  Board  be  reinstated." 

The  Committee  say  this  was  only  the  "  simple  ex 
pression  of  an  opinion."  Let  us  see.  Mr.  Conkling  had 
been  appointed,  on  the  3d  day  of  April,  "  to  investi 
gate  all  cases  of  fraud  in  the  Provost  Marshal's  Bu 
reau,  in  the  western  division  of  New  York."  On  the 
same  day  he  entered  upon  his  duties,  and  the  very 
paper  which  the  Committee  say  is  a  "  simple  expres 
sion  of  opinion,"  is  an  official  report  to  the  War  De 
partment  of  his  investigation  of  the  Utica  district. 
Here  is  what  he  says  :  "  Having  been  authorized  and 
requested  by  the  Secretary  of  War  to  examine  certain 
transactions  in  the  Bureau  of  the  Provost  Marshal 


8S  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-PRY    CONTROVERSY. 

General  relating  to  the  western  division  of  the  State 
of  New  York  I  have  the  honor"  etc.,  and  then  goes  on 
with  his  report,  and  closes  with  the  recommendation 
quoted. 

Let  it  be  noted  here,  by  way  of  parenthesis,  that 
Mr.  ConMing,  on  this  occasion,  when  all  the  facts 
and  circumstances  attending  his  appointment  were 
fresh  in  his  memory,  was  not  of  the  opinion  that  his 
appointment  was  simply  to  prosecute  Major  Haddock, 
for  he  did  then  understand  that  it  embraced  the  Utica 
office,  or,  in  other  words,  that  the  written  appointment 
meant  just  what  it  said. 

But  the  Committee  say  that  this  "simple  opin 
ion  "  of  Mr.  Colliding  "  was  concurred  in  very  gener 
ally  by  the  citizens  of  that  district"  There  is  no  foun 
dation  for  this  conclusion,  for  it  does  not  appear  from 
the  testimony  that  the  general  population,  or  even  a 
majority  of  the  citizens  of  the  district,  were  called  to 
the  witness  stand,  and  the  Report  (page  56)  shows 
that  the  Committee  expressly  excluded  proof  as  to  the 
reputation  of  Crandall  and  his  office.  See  their  Re 
port  (page  66)  as  follows  : 

"  The  Chairman :  All  that  portion  of  the  offer  of  evidence,  to  be  es 
tablished  by  general  reputation,  is  rejected  as  inadmissible." 

How,  then,  could  the  Committee,  sitting  as  a 
court,  have  learned  the  fact  that  Mr.  Conkling^s  opin 
ion  "was  concurred  in  very  generally  by  the  citizens  of 
that  district  "  ? 

Without  reference,  however,  to  the  means  by 
which  the  Committee  obtained  evidence  which  they 
themselves  ruled  was  improper  and  inadmissible,  there 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  89 

is  one  important  point  necessary  in  determining  the 
value  of  that  opinion,  and  that  is,  whether  the  parties 
who  expressed  it,  or  "  concurred  in  the  simple  opinion  " 
of  Mr.  ConJding,  possessed  any  knowledge  of  tlie  facts 
upon  which  the  charges  against  Crandall  ivere  predi 
cated.  On  this  point  there  is  no  light. 

The  information  to  which  attention  has  been 
directed,  namely,  that  Mr.  Goiiklings  opinion  of  Cap 
tain  Crandall  "  was  concurred  in  very  generally  by 
the  citizens  of  the  district,"  is  found,  not  in  evidence, 
but  in  Mr.  ConHincfs  argument.  (See  page  304.) 

It  is  there  stated  by  Mr.  Conldlng,  in  stronger 
terms  than  those  employed  by  the  Committee,  and  in 
justice  to  him  it  is  asked  why  it  is  that,  if  the  Com 
mittee  adopted  as  fact  the  statement  of  Counsel  ap 
pearing  in  his  own  behalf,  they  did  not  give  him  the 
whole  benefit  of  the  statement  as  he  made  it  ?  He,  in 
his  argument  (page  304),  after  saying  that  he  "  had 
no  part  in  selecting  Captain  Crandall"  that  he  only 
united  with  the  citizens  of  the  district  in  expressing 
confidence  in  his  integrity — states  that  he  uttered  the 
voice  of  the  "whole  community" 

The  Committee  add,  further,  that  this  "opinion" 
was  "supported  by  the  report  of  the  detective  selected 
by  General  Fry  to  investigate  the  acts  of  Captain 
Crandall:' 

This  statement  lacks  confirmation  in  two  particu 
lars  :  first,  "  General  Fry  "  never  "  selected  any  detec 
tive  "  who  made  such  investigations ;  and  secondly,  no 
such  report  was  ever  made  to  "  General  Fry"  On 
the  contrary,  the  inspecting  officer,  Major  Luddington, 
the  person  selected  by  me  to  investigate  the  acts  of 


90 


CONKLING    AND    ELAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


Captain     Grandall,     reported    directly   the    reverse. 
(See  page  155.) 

The  statement  regarding  my  opinion  as  to  whether 
Captain  Crandall  should  have  been  prosecuted,  is  pre 
sented,  it  is  supposed,  as  introductory  of  what  the 
Committee  say  Mr.  Dana  testified  to,  to  wit :  "  Mr 
Dana  testifies  to  the  statement  of  General  Fry,  that 
he  knew  nothing  which  Captain  Crandall  had  done 
or  omitted  which  he  should  not  have  done  or  omitted  " 
(page  8).  The  only  portion  of  Mr.  Dands  testimony 
that  relates  to  this  subject  is  as  follows  (page  113)  : 

"Question.  '  Do  you  remember  Mr.  Conkling' 8  calling  General  Fry's 
attention  to  the  statement  that  Captain  Crandall,  Provost  Marshal  of 
the  Twenty-First  District,  had  enlisted  men  who  received  a  smaller  lo 
cal  bounty  than  the  highest  bounty  paid  ? ' 

' '  Answer.     '  Yes,  sir. ' 

"Question.  '  Do  you  remember  Mr.  Conkling  putting  a  question  in 
two  forms  to  General  Fry,  as  to  what,  if  anything,  he  (Fry)  would  have 
done  differently  from  what  Captain  Crandall  did,  if  he  had  been  there 
acting  in  Crandall 's  place  ?  ' 

"Answer.  'The  charge  against  Captain  Crandall  was  that  he  had 
enlisted  men  for  less  bounty  than  that  which  was  regularly  paid,  and 
that  was  regarded  as  an  irregularity  on  the  part  of  Captain  Crandall. 
I  remember  Mr.  Conkling* s  asking  General  Fry  questions  about  it.  One 
of  these  questions  was,  what  he  would  have  done  had  he  been  in  Cap 
tain  Crandall' s  place,  if  the  men  had  come  to  him  proposing  to  enlist, 
taking  a  less  amount  of  bounty?  and  General  Fry  said  he  did  not  faww. 
And  I  think  Mr.  Conkling  asked  him  what  he  would  have  advised  Cap 
tain  Crandall  to  do.  He  said  again  he  did  not  know.'  " 

By  referring  to  page  152  it  will  be  seen  that  I 
enumerated  the  charges  against  Crandall  which  I 
proposed  to  prove.  The  charges  were  of  a  serious 
nature,  and  constituted  several  separate  and  distinct 
offenses. 

A  subject  relating  to  one  of  these  charges  was 
brought  to  my  attention  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Dana, 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  01 

as  he  says,  or  rather  a  hypothetical  case  was  stated 
to  me  for  my  opinion,  which  I  refused  to  give,  and 
stated  that  I  did  not  know  what  I  should  do,  or  ad 
vise  Crandall  to  do,  in  such  a  case. 

The  offenses  with  which  Captain  Crandall  was 
charged  were  not  referred  to,  unless  it  be  claimed  that 
the  conversation  had  reference  to  the  charge  of  muster 
ing  men  without  bounty.  No  other  charge  was  al 
luded  to  or  discussed.  On  this  point  Mr.  Dana  testi 
fied  only  that  I  said  I  did  not  know  what  I  would  have 
done,  or  what  I  would  have  advised  Captain  Crandall 
to  do  in  a  certain  case.  And  yet  the  Committee  say 
(page  8)  that  uMr.  Dana  testifies  to  the  statement  of 
General  Fry,  that  lie  Jctiew  nothing  which  Captain  Cran 
dall  had  done  or  omitted  which  he  should  not  have  done 
or  omitted" 

That  Mr.  Dana  never  intended  to  authorize  this 
perversion  of  his  words  and  meaning,  is  apparent  from 
what  he  tells  us  on  his  cross-examination. 

On  page  115  he  says  that  I  had  called  his  atten 
tion  to  the  condition  of  affairs  in  the  Twenty-First  Dis 
trict  ;  that  he  had  conversations  with  me  about  the 
Utica  district,  etc.,  and  sent  detectives  to  Utica  ;  that  I 
told  him  that  the  desertions  at  Utica  exceeded  those  else 
where,  etc.  This  being  true,  would  it  not  be  remarka 
ble  that  I  (who  had  requested  the  Secretary  of  War 
to  dismiss  Crandall  from  the  service,  as  recommended 
by  Major  Luddington,  to  which  request  the  Secretary 
had  acceded),  should  take  back  all  I  had  charged  against 
Crandall,  and  affirm  that  he  had  done  or  omitted 
nothing  but  what  he  should  have  done  or  omitted  ? 
On  the  other  hand,  does  not  Mr.  Dana's  testimony  on 


92  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

this  point  substantiate  the  truth  of  that  part  of  the 
letter  wherein  I  say  that  I  declined  to  discuss  this 
matter  with  Mr.  Colliding  ?  I  did,  as  Mr.  Dana  testi 
fies,  reply,  and  repeat  it,  to  Mr.  Conkling's  questions  as 
to  what  I  would  have  done,  etc.,  that  I  did  not  know ; 
and  this  in  pursuance  of  the  ground  1  had  taken  not 
to  discuss  the  subject  verbally  with  Mr.  ConTding. 
The  Committee  next  proceed  to  state : 

'•General  Fry,  in  his  letter  of  Kcv.  G.  published  in  the  Globe, 
says  that  Captain  Crandall  was  suspended  from  duty  for  refusing  to  turn 
over  the  $20,000  bonds  to  a  disbursing  officer,  an  act  for  which  he 
deserved  no  censure,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Committee,  for  the  reasons 
herein  stated.  The  letter  of  General  Fry  to  Mr.  Elaine  states  that 
Captain  Crandall  was  discharged  on  the  recommendation  of  Major 
Luddington,  who  reported  that,  though  not  legally  guilty,  he  had.  mor 
ally  perpetrated  a  most  glaring  and  inexcusable  fraud  on  the  govern 
ment  he  was  sworn  to  serve.  The  Committee  have  not  found,  in  the 
evidence  before  them  any  evidence  of  such  moral  fraud  on  the  part  of 
Captain  Crandall,  and  certainly  no  facts  have  been  shown  to  be  within 
the  knowledge  of  Mr.  ConHiny,  in  relation  to  Captain  Crandall,  which 
would  have  rendered  it  improper  for  Mr.  ConMing  to  have  recommended 
his  restoration  to  office." 

My  letter  of  November  6,  referred  to  by  the 
Committee,  is  not  in  evidence.  On  this  account  alone, 
the  example  of  the  Committee  is  departed  from,  and 
the  subject  of  its  contents  is  not  discussed.  It  will 
be  only  remarked  that,  when  I  state  that  I  suspended 
Captain  Crandall,  on  account  of  the  facts  disclosed  by 
Luddingtoris  report,  and  which  report  informed  me 
that  Captain  Crandall  had  refused  to  turn  over  the 
money  and  bonds  in  question,  the  difference  between 
the  two  statements  made  by  me  of  the  same  fact  is  so 
finely  drawn  that  it  cannot  be  seen  with  the  naked  eye. 

Here  is  the  proposition  : 

First.  General  Fry  states  that  he  suspended 
Captain  Crandall  for  refusing  to  turn  over  $20,000. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


93 


Second.  General  Fry  states  that  he  suspended 
Captain  Crandall  upon  the  report  of  Major  Ludding- 
ton,  in  which  report  he  is  informed  that  Crandall  had 
refused  to  turn  over  the  $20,000. 

The  Committee  next  give  it  as  their  opinion  that 
they  had  not  found  in  the  evidence  "  such  moral  fraud 
on  the  part  of  Captain  Crandall"  and  certainly  not 
within  the  knowledge  of  Mr.  Conkling,  as  made  it  im 
proper  for  Mr.  Colliding  to  recommend  his  restoration 
to  office.. 

It  has  already  been  stated  that  the  Committee 
refused  to  admit  proof  of  frauds  on  the  part  of  Cap 
tain  Crandall  or  his  office,  and  hence  of  course  such 
proofs  were  not  in  evidence  before  them. 

Allusion  has  already  been  made  to  that  portion 
of  the  report  (page  7)  in  which  the  Committee  express 
their  opinion  that,  because  Luddington  had  failed  to 
find  what  he  considered  legal  guilt,  therefore  his  opin 
ion  would  be  a  complete  defense  of  Captain  Crandall 
in  the  event  that  a  trial  had  been  ordered.  The  lan 
guage  of  the  Committee  (page  7)  is,  "surely  Mr.  Conk- 
ling  could  not  be  in  fault  for  not  prosecuting  him, 
when,  as  stated  in  Major  Luddingtorfs  report,  he  had 
incurred  no  legal  guilt." 

It  will  not  escape  the  observation  of  the  reader, 
that  the  estimation  in  which  the  Committee  held  the 
opinion  of  Major  Luddington  depended  entirely  on  the 
question  as  to  whether  or  not  it  agreed  with  that  ex 
pressed  by  Mr.  Colliding  in  his  argument,  for  when 
Major  Luddington  states  that  he  failed  to  discern 
legal  guilt,  the  Committee  say  that  is  an  end  of  the 
matter;  but  when  Major  Luddington  says  that,  in  his 


94  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

opinion,  "  Crandall  ought  to  be  dismissed  the  service," 
— "  that  the  money  in  his  possession  should  be  imme 
diately  seized," — that  "morally  he  has  perpetrated  a 
most  glaring  and  inexcusable  fraud,"  etc.,  the  Com 
mittee  immediately  take  issue  with  the  report,  and 
justify  Mr.  Conkling,  who  had  seriously  asked  the 
War  Department  to  reinstate  Captain  Crandall,  in  the 
face  of  this  report ;  and  the  Committee  give  it  as  their 
opinion  that  they  found  nothing  in  the  evidence  that 
rendered  "Mr.  Conlcling* s  recommendation  of  Cran 
dall  s  restoration  to  office  improper." 
The  Committee  next  remark : 

' '  An  attempt  was  made  to  show,  by  the  testimony  of  Patrick  J.  Ein- 
ney,  that  when  Aaron  Richardson,  a  bounty  broker  who  ought  to  have 
been  prosecuted  at  Utica,  was  arrested  at  Utica  he  was  set  at  liberty  by 
the  officers  having  him  in  custody,  after  an  interview  which  he  had,  at 
his  own  request,  with  Mr.  Corikling." 

The  inference  which  legitimately  follows  this 
statement  is,  that  the  "  attempt "  to  prove  the  propo 
sition  failed ;  for,  if  it  had  succeeded,  it  is  supposed 
the  Committee  would  have  regarded  it  as  an  accom 
plished  fact,  and  stated  it  accordingly.  The  question 
then  is,  "  Did  Mr.  Conkling's  intervention  secure  Mr. 
Richardson 's  release  ?  " 

Patrick  J.  Kinney  swears  that  it  did,  Judge 
Hunt  confirms  it,  and  Mr.  Conkling  admits  it.  Here 
is  what  Kinney  states  in  his  testimony  (page  84)  : 

"Question.  'State  your  residence  and  employment  in  March, 
1865.' 

;  'Answer.  '  I  was  living  in  Utica,  and  was  clerk  at  Baggs'  Hotel. ' 

" Question.  'State  whether  Aaron  Richardson  was  arrested  at  that 
hotel  in  March,  1865.' 

' ' Answer.  '  Yes,  sir ;  a  couple  of  men  came  there  and  arrested  him. ' 

' '  Question.  '  What  time  was  that  arrest  made ?  ' 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  95 

4  'Answer.  '  They  came  there  about  five  o'clock  in  the  morning.  I 
think  the  arrest  was  made  at  about  half -past  five. ' 

" Question.  'Do  you  know  whether  any  messenger  was  sent  for 
Conkling  or  not,  upon  his  arrest ;  and  if  so,  who  went  ?  ' 

"Answer.      ' I  went  for  Mr.  Conkling' 

' '  Question.  '  State  where  you  found  Mr.  Conkling,  and  what  you 
said  to  him.' 

"Answer.  'Mr.  Conkling  was  in  his  room.  I  told  him  that  Mr. 
Richardson  wanted  to  see  him,  and  that  he  was  arrested.  I  came  over 
to  the  hotel,  and  Mr.  Conkling  came  soon  after.  By  this  time  they  had 
come  down  from  Mr.  Richardson  s  room.  When  Mr.  Conkling  came 
over  there,  they  were  behind  the  desk.  Mr.  Conkling  spoke  to  one  of 
the  men  who  had  arrested  Richardson,  and  called  the  other  and  spoke 
with  him,  and  Mr.  Richardson  went  a  short  time  and  spoke  with  them, 
and,  after  a  few  moments.  Mr.  Conkling  went  away.' 

' '  Question.  '  When  you  speak  of  ' '  these  men ' '  do  you  mean  the 
men  that  arrested  Mr.  Richardson  ?  ' 

"Answer.      '  Yes,  sir  ' 

"Question.  *  Do  you  know  whether  or  not  Mr.  Richardson  was  dis 
charged  from  arrest?  '  (Objected  to,  and  objection  overruled.) 

'  'Answer.  '  They  did  not  do  anything  with  him  that  I  know  of. 
The  men  went  away  and  left  Richardson  there.'' 

Mr.  Conkling,  in  his  examination  of  Judge  Hunt, 
a,  witness  called  by  himself  (page  100)  inquires  as 
follows  : 

"  Question.  '  Do  you  recollect  the  circumstances  of  his  (Richardson) 
being  arrested  by  detectives  ?  ' 

'  'Answer.     '  Yes,  sir. ' 

"Question.  '  Do  you  recollect  Mr.  Conkling' 8  informing  you,  and 
on  that  same  day,  of  what  had  occurred  ?  ' 

'  'Answer.  '  Mr.  Conkling  informed  me,  I  think  on  the  same  day, 
that  Richardson  had  been  arrested  early  in  the  morning ;  that  there  was 
some  confusion  about  it ;  that  Richardson  had  sent  for  him,  and  that  he 
had  taken  the  detectives  one  side,  and  had  informed  them  that  Richard 
son  was  making  important  disclosures  to  him,  and  was  aiding  and 
benefiting  the  government  in  that  way,  and  that  Mr.  Conkling  was 
making  use  of  him;  and  that,  in  substance,  the  facts  stated  by  him  to 
the  detectives  induced  them  to  discharge  Richardson,'  "  etc. 

As  the  question  of  fact  now  stands  on  this  point 
of  the  Committee's  Keport,  we  have  the  testimony  of 


96  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

Patrick  J.  Kinney  and  Judge  Hunt,  and  Mr.  Coiik- 
ling\s  admission,  on  the  one  side,  and  the  statement  of 
the  Committee,  without  any  testimony  to  support  it, 
on  the  other.  The  bearing  of  the  facts  in  this  case 
upon  my  charge  of  zeal  on  Mr.  Conkling*s  part  in  pre 
venting  prosecutions  atUtica,  need  not  be  dwelt  upon. 
The  Committee  next  proceed  as  follows : 

"  In  relation  to  this  matter,  it  is  only  necessary  to  say  that  Mr. 
llii'kardwn  had  made  important  discfosure*  t<>  the  fjovernment ;  was  a  wit 
ness  in  the  prosecution  of  Haddock  ;  that  the  a<-tx  of  Mr.  Conkling  were 
fully  known  to  and  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  War." 

Now,  is  it  true  "  that  Hichardson  had  made  im 
portant  disclosures  to  the  government"  ? 

The  arrest  and  release  by  Mr.  Conkling*s  inter 
vention  occurred  some  time  during  the  month  of  March 
(page  84).  It  must  have  occurred  prior  to  the  30th 
of  that  month,  because  Mr.  Conkling,  who  was  pres 
ent  on  the  occasion,  proves  by  Judge  Hunt  (page  100) 
that,  on  that  day,  he  and  the  witness  were  at  Syracuse, 
u  on  professional  engagements;"  and,  on  that  day, 
while  at  Syracuse,  Mr.  Conkling  received  Mr.  Dana's 
despatch,  dated  March  30  (see  page  111),  and  that, 
at  midnight,  March  30,  Mr.  Conkling  left  Syracuse  for 
Washington,  pursuant  to  the  despatch.  (Seepage  100.) 

If,  then,  it  be  true  that  Richardson  was  released 
because  he  had  made  important  disclosures  to  the  gov 
ernment,  they  must  have  been  made  prior  to  the  day 
on  which  Mr.  Conkling  left  Utica  for  Syracuse,  where 
we  find  him,  by  the  testimony,  on  the  30th  day  of 
March. 

It  then  becomes  important  to  know  when  these 
disclosures  were  made  to  "the  government." 

o 

Fortunately,  the  Secretary  of  War  has  fixed,  with 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  97 

certainty,  the  date,  and,  unfortunately  for  the  Com 
mittee,  he  fixes  it  at  a  period  subsequent  to  the  arrest 
and  release  of  Richardson.  Here  is  what  he  says  : 

"Sometime  in  the  latter  part  of  March,  1865,  my  attention  was 
called  to  the  subject  of  alleged  abuses  and  fraud  practised  on  a  large 
scale  in  the  Provost  Marshal's  District,  of  which  Major  Haddock  was  the 
chief.  About  the  30th  of  March,  it  was  communicated  to  me,  I  think 
by  Mr.  Dana,  that  there  was  a  person  cognizant  of  facrs  in  relation  to 
those  alleged  frauds  that  could  afford  information  useful  to  the  govern 
ment,  if  that  person  was  himself  made  secure  against  prosecution  or 
punishment  for  his  participation  in  those  offenses.  I  directed  Mr. 
Dana  to  telegraph  to  Mr.  Co»kliny  to  come  here.  I  suppose  the  date  of 
the  telegram  was  the  30th  of  March — the  same  day  1 r  r»  reived  this  infor 
mation.'' 

The  fact,  then,  is,  as  disclosed  by  the  testimony, 
that  some  time  in  March,  previous  to  March  30, 
Richardson  was  arrested  at  half- past  five  o'clock  in 
the  morning;  that  he  sent  Kinney  for  Mr.  Corikling, 
who  immediately  came  and  caused  his  release ;  and 
that  the  Secretary  of  War  had  no  information,  until 
the  30th  of  March,  that  such  a  man  as  "Richardson" 
existed,  or  that  anybody  had  proposed  to  make  dis 
closures  on  the  subject.  Therefore,  it  is  not  true,  as 
reported  by  the  Committee,  that  Richardson  was  re 
leased  because  he  "had  made  disclosures  to  the  gov 
ernment,"  for  the  simple  reason  that  the  government 
had  no  information  on  the  subject  until  after  the  re 
lease.  Mr.  Colliding  was  not  appointed  to  investigate 
frauds,  or  try  Haddock,  until  the  3d  of  April  follow 
ing  that  transaction,  and  does  not  even  claim  to  have 
had  authority  prior  to  that  time  to  receive  disclosures 
or  represent  the  War  Department  in  any  respect  what 
ever. 

The  next  statement  is,  that  Richardson  was  a 
witness  in  the  prosecution  of  Haddock. 


98  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

This,  as  an  independent  proposition,  not  connected 
with  the  subject  under  discussion,  is  certainly  true ; 
but  this  admitted  truth  is  so  used  by  the  Committee 
as  to  produce  error,  for  it  will  not  be  denied  that  the 
statement  of  the  Committee  that  "Richardson  was  a 
witness  in  the  prosecution  of  Haddock"  was  intended, 
in  some  way,  to  exculpate  Mr.  OonJding  for  securing 
the  release  of  Richardson,  that  being  the  point  then 
under  the  consideration  of  the  Committee.  And  as 
the  proof  shows  that  Haddock's  trial  commenced  in 
the  latter  part  of  May,  it  is  obvious  that  Richardson  s 
testimony  had  no  connection  with  events  that  occurred 
in  the  March  preceding.  The  Committee  then  add  : 

' '  The  acts  of  Mr.  ConTding  in  relation  to  the  witness  were  fully 
known  to,  and  approved  by,  the  Secretary  of  War." 

If  this  statement  means  the  acts  of  Mr.  Conk- 
ling,  by  which  Richardson  was  released  from  ar 
rest,  then  it  is  wholly  without  foundation,  and  un 
less  it  is  intended  to  mean  that,  it  is  without  meaning. 

That  it  is  calculated  to  convey  that  which  shall  be 
presently  demonstrated  to  be  erroneous  is  evident 
from  the  subject-matter  to  which  it  relates,  and  its 
connection  with  the  charge  which  it  attempts  to  ex 
plain  away. 

The  charge  is,  that  Mr.  Conkling  secured  the  re 
lease  of  Aaron  Richardson.  In  justification  of  Mr. 
Oonkling's  conduct,  the  Committee  state  two  proposi 
tions  as  facts : 

1st,  That  Richardson  had  made  important  dis 
closures  to  the  government ;  arid  2nd,  that  the  acts 
of  Mr.  Conkling  in  relation  to  Richardson  were  known 
to,  and  approved  by,  the  Secretary  of  War.  There- 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FEY    CONTROVERSY. 


99 


fore,  no  blame  is  to  be  attached  to  Mr.  Conkling  for 
releasing  Richardson. 

The  present  question,  then,  is  simply  this  :  "  Were 
the  acts  of  Mr.  Conkling  in  releasing  Hicha/rdson  from 
arrest,  known  to,  and  approved  by,  the  Secretary  of 
War?" 

It  has  been  stated  that  Richardson's  arrest  and 
release  occurred  in  March.  On  the  second  day  of 
April  following,  Mr.  Conkling  had  an  interview  with 
Mr.  Stanton  (see  testimony  of  Mr.  Stanto-n,  page  122), 
in  which  interview  Mr.  Conkling  brought  to  the  at 
tention  of  the  Secretary  the  fact  that  Richardson  was 
willing  to  give  information  to  the  government,  if  the 
government  would  guarantee  that  such  information 
would  not  be  used  against  himself;  whereupon  the 
Secretary  informed  Mr.  Conkling  that  he  "  would  not 
give  any  guarantee  of  that  character." 

Here  is  the  testimony  (page  127)  : 

' '  Question  '  Will  you  state  whether  Mr.  Conkling  brought  to  your 
knowledge,  when  here  on  the  occasion  spoken  of,  the  fact  that  there 
was  a  person  who  held  no  office,  but  had  been  engaged  in  recruiting, 
and  who  was  willing  to  furnish  evidence  to  the  government,  if  it 
would  not  be  used  against  himself  ?  ' 

"•Answer.  'I  remember  that  Mr.  Conkling  mentioned  there  was  a 
person  who  could  give  evidence  material  to  the  government,  provided 
he  was  himself  secured  against  prosecution.  I  refused  to  give  any 
guarantee  of  that  character,  but  told  Mr.  Conkling  that  if  this  person 
was  cognizant  of  any  of  the  matters  of  which  he  had  the  investigation, 
it  was  competent  for  him  to  use  that  person  as  a  witness ;  and  if  he  was 
satisfied  that  he  testified  fairly  and  truly,  the  practice  of  the  Depart 
ment  never  was  to  prosecute  such  persons.'  ' 

From  this,  it  appears  that  the  Secretary  of  War 
was  not  informed  that  Richardson  had  made  impor 
tant  disclosures,  but  that,  on  certain  conditions,  he 
would  be  willing  to  give  e\7idence  material  to  the  gov. 


100  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

eminent ;  and  tliis  is  all  the  information  lie  had  on  tne 
subject.  The  statement,  therefore,  that  "  the  acts  of 
Mr.  Colliding  relating  to  the  release  of  Richardson 
were  fully  known  to,  and  approved  by,  the  Secretary 
of  War,"  is  not  correct. 

The  next  point  discussed  by  the  Committee  relates 
to  the  employment  of  counsel  to  defend  a  suit  brought 
by  Aaron  Richardson  against  Captain  Crandall,  to 
recover  $20,000  in  bonds  belonging  to  the  United 
States,  which  Crandall  had  been  ordered  in  vain  to 
turn  over  to  the  government. 

To  understand  the  history  of  this  transaction,  we 
will  go  back  to  the  llth  day  of  March,  1865,  and  hear 
what  Captain  Crandall  had  to  say  on  the  subject  of 
these  bonds.  In  his  letter  to  the  Provost  Marshal 
General,  of  that  date,  which  his  attorney,  Judge  Hunt, 
says  was  written  by  his  advice  and  suggestion  (see 
page  92),  he  says  : 

"I  have  in  my  hands,  left  with  me  by  recruits,  in  the  manner  stated, 
money  to  the  amount  of  $11,395,  find  county  bonds  to  the  amount  of 
$20,000. 

The  testimony  shows  that  Captain  Crandall  was 
ordered  by  his  superior  officer,  Major  Haddock,  to 
turn  these  bonds  over  to  Special  Officer  Hoard,  and 
that  he  disobeyed  the  order  (page  94). 

That  he  was  next  ordered  to  turn  them  over  to 
Captain  Meredith,  a  United  States  disbursing  officer, 
and  that  he  disobeyed  (page  94). 

That  he  was  next  ordered  to  turn  them  over  to 
Major  Beadle,  who  relieved  him  as  Provost  Marshal, 
and  who  was  entitled  to  receive  from  him  money  and 
property  which  he  held  as  Provost  Marshal,  and  that 
he  disobeyed  that  order  (pages  84  and  202). 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


101 


That  he  was  next  ordered  by  the  Provost  Mar 
shal  General  to  turn  over  the  same,  and  again  failed 
(pages  95,  96  and  202). 

After  having  disobeyed  four  different  orders,  to 
turn  the  bonds  over  to  the  United  States,  it  seems  a 
suit  for  their  recovery  was  instituted  by  Aaron  Rich 
ardson,  which  suit  was  successfully  defended  by  Gran- 
doll,  on  the  ground  that  the  bonds  belonged  to  the 
United  States,  although '  he  had  refused  to  surrender 
them  to  the  United  States,  and  still  retained  possession 
of  them  after  lie  ceased  to  be  an  officer  of  the  govern 
ment. 

The  Committee  say  (page  8)  : 

' '  They  (the  bonds)  either  belonged  to  Richardson,  who  deposited 
them,  or  to  the  government,  for  whose  security  they  were  deposited." 

CrandaTPs  Attorney,  Judge  Hunt,  testifies  (page  98) 
that  Captain  "  Orandall  never  claimed  any  personal 
interest  in  those  bonds ;  "  that  "  there  was  no  motive 
on  the  part  of  Orandall  but  to  hold  them  that  the  gov 
ernment  might  have  the  benefit  of  them,  and  to  compel 
the  proper  conduct  of  Ricliardson  during  the  Haddock 
trial."  Again : 

' '  Question.     '  What  became  of  the  bonds  eventually  ?  ' 
'  '•Answer.     '  The  suit  was  tried  before  Judge  Bacon  and  was  decided 
in  favor  of  Captain  Orandall,  and  against  the  claim  of  Ricliardson.     The 
suit   is   now,    as   I   understand,    appealed   to  the    General    Term.'  ' 
(Page  98.) 

Let  it  not  be  forgotten  that  the  Committee  (page 
8)  have  decided,  as  a  question  of  law,  that  these  bonds 
"  either  belonged  to  Richardson  or  to  the  govern 
ment."  Judge  Hunt,  however,  informs  us  (page  99) 
that 

' '  within  a  few  days  before  the  suit  was  tried,  a  resolution  was  passed 
by  the  Board  of  Supervisors  of  the  county  of  Oneida,  in  effect  request- 


102 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


ing  Mr.  Crand'ill  to  transfer  to  the  county  for  their  benefit,  to  indem 
nify  them  as  far  as  possible  on  the  subject  of  recruiting  moneys,  these 
bonds  of  Richardson  and  any  claim  he  might  have  in  or  to  the  bonds, 
agreeing  with  him  to  indemnify  him  against  all  loss  or  damage  in  con 
sequence  of  so  doing,  upon  any  claim  that  would  be  made  against  him, 
and  offering  to  pay  his  costs  or  expenses.  A  bond  was  given  him  which 
I  prepared,  and  an  assignment  made  transferring  all  his  interest  in  the 
claims  for  the  benefit  of  the  county  of  Oneida — Mr.  Crandall  made  no 
personal  claim  of  ownership  of  the  bonds  at  any  time. ' ' 

It  will  be  remembered  that  these  bonds  were 
issued  by  the  Supervisors  of  Oneida  county  ;  that,  at 
the  time,  Captain  Crandall  was  Clerk  of  the  Board  of 
Supervisors,  as  well  as  Provost  Marshal  (see  page 
65),  and  that  he  was  one  of  the  principal  witnesses  in 
the  prosecution  of  Major  Haddock,  of  which  case  Mr. 
Colliding  was  Judge  Advocate. 

That,  on  the  llth  of  April,  he  {Crandall)  repre 
sented  to  me  (page  92)  that  he 

' '  had  in  his  hands,  left  with  him  by  recruits,  in  the  manner  stated, 
money  to  the  amount  of  $11,395,  and  county  bonds  to  the  amount  of 
$20,000." 

That,  on  four  different  occasions,  he  was  ordered 
to  turn  these  funds  over  to  the  government,  all  of 
which  orders  he  failed  to  obey,  on  account,  as  he  says, 
of  Richardson's  claim. 

Having  obtained  possession  of  these  bonds  in  his 
official  capacity  as  Provost  Marshal,  he  retained  pos 
session  of  them  in  defiance  of  repeated  orders  to  turn 
them  over,  and  having  defeated  the  government  in  its 
efforts  to  obtain  them,  he  defeated  the  claim  of  Rich 
ardson.  No  longer  in  the  service,  he  finds  himself  a 
citizen  with  $20,000  in  bonds,  which,  as  he  states  in  his 
letter,  he  has  "  in  his  hands,  left  with  him  by  recruits," 
and  which  the  Committee  say  (page  8),  "  belong  un- 


CONKLING    AND    ELAINE- FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


103 


questionably  either  to  Richardson  or  the  government" 
both  of  which  parties  he  has  managed  to  defeat ;  and 
having  thus  defeated  all  parties  who,  the  Committee 
say,  had  any  right  to  these  bonds,  Captain  Orandall 
proceeded  to  turn  them  over  to  the  Board  of  Super 
visors,  of  which  he  had  been,  and  it  is  believed  was 
still,  the  clerk.  Yet  we  are  told  by  the  Committee 
(page  9)  that  they  have  "  not  been  able  to  discover 
anything  improper  in  the  conduct  of  Captain  Crandall 
in  relation  to  these  bonds."  For  further  discussion  of 
this  subject  see  Appendix  F. 

The  Committee  next  proceed  to  discuss  the  para 
graph  of  rny  letter  charging  Mr.  ConUing  with  neglect 
of  duty  in  not  filing  charges  against  me,  if  he  had  dis 
covered  guilt  or  official  misconduct  on  my  part ;  and 
this  statement  of  mine  is  declared  in  the  Committee's 
finding  to  be  without  foundation  in  truth.  The  Com 
mittee  say :  "  Mr.  Oonkling  had  nothing  to  do  with 
filing  charges  against  General  Fry?  and  they  support 
this  opinion  by  adding : 

*  *  Mr.  Stanton  said,  '  In  the  prosecution  of  Major  Haddock  to  final 
judgment,  Mr.  Conkling  performed  all  the  duty  I  expected  him  to  per 
form.'  " 

The  Committee's  quotation  was  part  of  Mr.  Stan- 
tons  testimony  in  chief,  and  is  general  in  its  terms  and 
application.  The  record  of  his  cross-examination  (page 
128)  brings  his  testimony  directly  to  the  point  in  issue, 
and  shows  the  following  question  to,  and  answer  from 
him  : 

"  Question.  'If,  in  the  course  of  that  investigation,  among  per 
sons  supposed  to  have  been  involved  in  these  frauds,  it  had  come  to 
the  notice  of  Mr.  ConUing  that  the  Provost  Marshal  General  himself 
was  implicated  in  these  frauds,  would  it  then  have  been  proper  for 


104 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


him  to  have  notified  the  head  of  the  War  Department  of  the  facts  that 
would  implicate  the  chief  of  that  Bureau  ? ' 

'  'Answer.  '  If  facts,  affecting  the  honesty  and  integrity  of  the 
Provost  Marshal  General,  or  his  proper  administration  of  the  office,  had 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  Mr.  Conkling,  I  think  it  would  have  been  his 
duty  to  report  them  to  the  Secretary  of  War  for  his  action.'  ' 

Here  the  witness,  in  answer  to  a  question  bearing 
directly  on  the  point  in  issue,  in  unmistakable  lan 
guage,  states,  as  I  stated  in  my  letter,  that  if  Mr.  Conk- 
ling  learned  facts  affecting  my  honesty  or  integrity,  it 
was  his  duty  to  have  reported  them  to  the  War  De 
partment  for  action;  and  this  fact  appears  on  the 
record,  and  was  pointedly  set  out  by  my  counsel  in 
his  argument.  Yet  the  Committee  ignore  it,  and  make 
an  extract  from  the  testimony  in  chief  of  this  witness, 
and  then  quote  him  as  authority  for  their  statement 
that  Mr.  Colliding  had  nothing  to  do  with  filing  charges 
against  General  Fry. 

In  relation  to  the  powers  and  duties  imposed  upon 
Mr.  Conkling  by  the  appointment  of  April  3,  "  to  in 
vestigate  all  cases  of  fraud  in  the  Provost  Marshal's 
Department  of  the  Western  Division  of  New  York, 
and  all  misdemeanors  connected  with  recruiting,"  Mr. 
Stanton  said  in  his  testimony,  "  the  authority  upon  its 
face  speaks  for  itself."  Further  comment  seems  un 
necessary,  but  in  exhibiting  the  unsoundness  of  the 
Committee's  judgment  upon  this  point,  it  is  proper  to 
make  admission  that  Mr.  Conkling^  s  letter  of  appoint 
ment  was  not  intended  by  the  Secretary  of  War  to 
empower  Mr.  Conkling  to  investigate  my  conduct,  nor 
was  it  so  understood  by  Mr.  ConMing.  The  point  I 
made  is,  that  if,  while  per  forming  the  plain  duty  which 
be  assumed  under  the  appointment,  Mr.  Conkling  came 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


105 


into  possession  of  facts  which  justified  his  attack  upon 
me  in  the  House,  then  he  was  bound  by  the  situation 
in  which  he  found  himself  to  file  charges  against  me 
in  the  War  Department  long  before  his  speech  was 
made.  That  the  condition  of  public  affairs  called  for 
that  action  is  shown  by  the  Committee,  where  they 

8aJ  (Page  3)  : 

' '  On  the  2d  of  April  Mr.  Gonkling  came  to  Washington  and  had  an 
interview  with  the  Secretary  of  War,  who  then  urged  him  to  take 
charge  of  the  investigation  referred  to,  stating,  at  the  same  time,  that 
he  considered  a  diligent  and  vigorous  investigation  as  absolutely  neces 
sary  to  the  safety  of  the  country ;  that  we  were  at  that  time  engaged  in 
the  midst  of  a  draft;  that  General  Grant  had  commenced  his  move 
ments  ;  and  that  everything  depended  on  keeping  the  army  up ;  and  the 
means  of  keeping  the  army  up  was  the  diligent  and  vigorous  recruiting 
which  was  then  going  on." 

Notwithstanding  all  this,  it  would  have  been  "  evi 
dently  improper,"  in  the  opinion  of  the  Committee,  for 
Mr.  Gonkling  to  have  reported  or  "  filed  any  charges" 
against  me,  if  he  had  discovered  that  I  was  at  the  bot 
tom  of  the  frauds  which  he  was  appointed  to  investi 
gate,  and  the  suppression  of  which  the  Secretary  of 
War  regarded  as  "  absolutely  necessary  to  the  safety 
of  the  country." 

' '  All  Mr.  Gonkling  could  do  in  respect  to  other  persons  than  Major 
Haddock  would  ~be  to  prefer  charges  or  proofs  against  others  besides  Major 
Haddock,  and  then  it  would  require  the  order  of  the  Department  detail 
ing  this  or  some  other  court  of  which  he  might  or  might  not  be  a  mem 
ber  as  Judge  Advocate,  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  those  cases  to  trial. ' ' 
(PageS.) 

The  Committee  here  admit  that  it  was  Mr.  Conk- 
ling1 8  duty  to  prefer  charges  or  proofs  against  persons 
other  than  Major  Haddock.  Yet  they  (page  10)  say 
that  "  he  (Conkling)  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
filing  charges  against  General  Fry" 


106  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

But  aside  from  all  of  this,  if  Mr.  Conkling  had 
acted  in  no  official  capacity  whatever,  was  he  not,  as 
stated  in  my  letter,  guilty  of  grave  public  wrong,  as  a 
good  citizen,  in  not  filing  charges  against  a  high  gov 
ernment  officer,  if  he  came  into  possession  of  facts  im 
pugning  or  impeaching  the  integrity  of  that  officer,  in 
a  matter  in  which  the  welfare  of  the  nation  was 
thought  to  be  involved  ? 

For  a  report  of  a  Committee,  wrhich  ought  to  have 
been  impartial,  there  is  at  least  sufficient  indignation 
expressed  in  their  opinion  of  the  statement  in  my  letter 
touching  a  report  that  Mr.  Conkling  had  received  addi 
tional  fees  from  the  people  of  his  district  for  his  ser 
vices  in  the  Haddock  case. 

It  is  not,  however,  proposed  to  discuss  the  temper 
of  this  part  of  the  Keport,  but  to  deal  with  its  findings 
as  contrasted  with  its  own  record  of  the  case. 

Here  the  Committee  again  group  together  differ 
ent  paragraphs  of  my  letter,  which  have  no  possible 
relation  to  each  other,  and  proceed  to  comment  upon 
them,  as  if  they  had  been  connected  and  intended  to 
convey  the  meaning  which  the  Committee  profess  was 
designed  by  the  writer.  The  Committee  then  proceed 
to  say  that  they  can  find  "  not  even  the  existence  of 
the  report  as  to  the  $5,000 ; "  that  the  accusation  of 
the  existence  of  the  report  "  is  not  only  utterly  false 
in  fact,  but  false  in  each  particular,"  etc.  At  this 
point  it  is  asked,  Upon  what  proof  do  the  Committee 
base  this  statement  ?  The  record  of  the  testimony 
does  not  justify  it,  as  the  only  witnesses  who  testified 
on  this  point  were  Mr.  Conkling  himself  and  his  wit 
ness,  Mr.  Roberts,  and  their  testimony  was  only  that 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  107 

THEY  had  never  heard  the  rumor.  It  will  not  do  to 
say  that  I  did  not  bring  affirmative  proof  to  show  its 
existence.  If  it  was  a  subject  of  sufficient  importance 
to  arouse  the  indignation  of  the  Committee,  and  con 
stitute  a  prominent  feature  of  the  Report,  it  must  be 
presumed  that  it  was  of  sufficient  interest  to  them  to 
make  some  investigation  as  to  the  truth  of  its  exist 
ence,  for  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  tlie  Committee 
were  directed  to  investigate;  and  they  were  not  ex 
pected  to  fold  their  arms  and  wait  for  testimony  to 
offer  itself ;  especially  as  at  the  outset  of  the  investi 
gation  the  Committee  failed  to  inform  me,  in  answer 
to  my  inquiry,  on  what  points  they  desired  evidence 
to  be  presented. 

The  Committee  next  allege  that  the  letter  con 
taining  the  charge  was  "  written  out  and  sent  to 
Congress  to  be  read  in  the  presence  of  the  nation/' 
etc. 

This  is  simply  a  gratuity,  which  has  already  been 
noticed.  Whoever  had  read  the  letter,  or  heard  it 
read,  knew  well  that  it  was  not  sent  "  to  Congress" 
but  to  a  member,  and  that  to  him  primarily,  and  to 
the  House  which  permitted  its  reading,  are  we  in 
debted  for  the  fact  of  its  being  read  in  the  House. 

The  Committee  next  proceed  to  eulogize  the  con 
duct  of  Mr.  Oonkling  for  the  part  he  took  in  the  trial 
of  Major  Haddock. 

Listen  : 

' '  He  accepted  the  service  with  reluctance,  and  upon  the  most 
pressing  and  repeated  solicitations  of  the  Secretary  of  War.  He  took  it 
at  the  sacrifice  of  other  professional  business  of  equal  value,  or  of,  per 
haps,  greater  value  to  him  than  he  realized  for  this.  He  took  it  at  a 


108  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-PRY    CONTROVERSY. 

time  when  it  was  almost  vital  to  the  interest  of  the  military  service  in 
New  York  that  it  should  be  rendered. ' ' 

Mr.  Colliding  was  appointed  Judge  Advocate  in 
the  Haddock  case  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  by  Special 
Orders  No.  227,  dated  Adjutant  General's  Office,  May 
13,  1865,  a  copy  of  which  is  in  evidence.  Richmond 
was  evacuated  on  the  2d  day  of  April,  1865.  Mr.  Dana 
and  Mr.  Conkling  went  to  the  capital  of  the  so-called 
Confederacy,  then  in  our  possession,  and  after  return 
ing  Mr.  Conkling  received  the  authority  in  question. 
Lee  surrendered  April  9,  1865,  and  the  war  was  over. 
Orders  went  out  on  the  13th  day  of  April,  1865,  to 
stop  drafting  and  recruiting.  During  the  summer  fol 
lowing,  Mr.  Conkling  convicted  Major  Haddock,  and 
yet  we  are  gravely  told  by  the  Committee  that  the 
services  were  undertaken  at  a  time  almost  vital  to  the 
interests  of  the  military  service  in  New  York. 

The  Committee  next  proceed  to  discuss  the  ques 
tion  of  the  right  of  Mr.  Conkling  to  receive  compensa 
tion  as  a  member  of  Congress  and  Judge  Advocate  for 
the  same  period. 

It  is  certain  that  Mr.  Conkling  was  a  member  of 
Congress  and  was  paid  as  such  from  March  4,  1865,  to 
March  4, 1867,  and  that  between  those  dates  he  acted  as 
Judge  Advocate  of  the  Haddock  court-martial,  and  for 
that  received  from  the  government  the  sum  of  $3,000. 
I  did  not  assert  that  it  was  unlawful  for  Mr.  Conkling 
to  receive  both  payments,  but  the  Committee,  after  a 
long  argument,  decide  that  the  double  payment  was 
lawful.  Upon  that  decision  I  shall  only  remark  that, 
as  Judge  Advocate,  Mr.  Conkling  either  performed  the 
duties  of  an  office,  or  he,  being  at  the  time  a  member 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY  CONTROVERSY.  109 

of  Congress,  was  employed  and  paid  by  the  govern 
ment  as  a  lawyer.  It  is,  I  believe,  conceded  that  the 
incumbent  of  one  office  is  not  entitled  to  pay  for  per 
forming  the  duties,  of  another  office ;  and,  though  lightly 
pushed  aside  by  the  Committee,  the  Act  of  1808,  as 
interpreted  by  Attorney-General  Wirt,  forbids  the  gov 
ernment  from  employing  a  member  of  Congress  as  a 
lawyer.  That  the  reader  may  judge  for  himself  the 
letter  and  spirit  of  the  Act  of  1808,  and  the  Attorney- 
General's  official  construction  of  it,  I  give  them  in  full. 

Act  of  April  2\st    1808,  Section  4. 

'•If  any  officer  of  the  United  States, on  behalf  of  the  United  States, 
shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  make  or  enter  into  any  contract,  bargain 
or  agreement,  in  writing  or  otherwise,  other  than  such  as  herein  ex- 
cepted,  with  any  member  of  Congress,  such  officer,  so  offending  on 
conviction  thereof,  shall  be  deemed  and  taken  to  be  guilty  of  a  high 
misdemeanor,  and  be  fined  in  a  sum  of  three  thousand  dollars." 

Contracts  ivith  Members  of  Congress. 

Although  the  employment  of  members  of  Con 
gress  as  assistant  counsel  to  the  District  Attorneys  of 
the  United  States  was  not  within  the  view  of  Congress 
at  the  passage  of  the  Act  of  21st  of  April,  1808,  it  for 
bids  all  contracts  between  officers  of  the  government 
and  members  of  Congress. 

The  policy  of  the  law  is  to  prevent  the  exercise 
of  executive  influence  over  the  members  of  Congress 
by  means  of  contracts ;  and  whether  the  contract  be 
for  the  services  of  a  lawyer,  a  physician,  a  mail-carrier, 
or  a  purveyor,  it  is  equally  within  the  mischief  to  be 
prevented. 

"ATTORNEY  GENERAL'S  OFFICE, 

"JULY  18,  1826. 

' '  SIR  :     The  question  which  you  submit  for  my  opinion  is,  whether 
your  employment  of  members  of  Congress,  as  assistant  counsel  to  the 


110  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

District  Attorneys  of  the  United  States,  be  within  the  prohibitions  of 
the  Act  of  21st  April,  1808,  '  concerning  public  contracts  '  ? 

' '  I  am  entirely  satisfied  that  this  sort  of  engagements  was  not 
within  the  view  of  Congress  when  the  act  was  passed;  but  that  the 
species  of  contracts  which  led  to  its  passage  were  of  a  different  char 
acter,  as  stated  in  the  report  of  a  select  committee  of  the  29th 
March,  1822,  upon  the  subject  of  the  employment  of  a  Senator  of  the 
United  States  in  the  examination  of  certain  land  offices  in  Ohio,  &c. 
The  practice,  too,  in  several  instances  stated  in  that  report,  seems  to 
have  limited  the  construction  of  the  act  to  the  specific  species  of  con 
tracts  which  were  known  to  have  led  to  its  enactment.  But  yet,  the 
language  of  the  law  is  so  broad  and  so  explicit,  not  only  in  its  positive 
enactments,  but  in  its  exceptions ;  and  its  policy,  too,  is  so  broad  and 
genera],  that  I  cannot  discover  any  satisfactory  distinction  by  which  the 
contracts  in  question  can  be  withdrawn  from  its  operation. 

"  The  1st  section  forbids  all  contracts  between  officers  of  the  gov 
ernment  and  members  of  Congress.  It  is  true  that  the  language  of  this 
section  seems,  for  the  most  part,  to  be  applicable  only  to  the  kind  of 
contracts  which  produced  the  law ;  and  had  the  question  rested  on  this 
section  only,  there  would  have  been  good  ground  for  confining  the 
operation  of  the  act  to  those  kinds  of  contracts  to  which  it  owes  its 
origin.  But  the  2d  reflects  a  larger  construction  on  the  1st,  by 
excepting  from  its  action  a  species  of  contract  as  far  removed  from  the 
natural  sense  of  the  1st  section  as  the  kind  of  engagements  now  in 
question — to  wit,  the  purchase  of  bills  of  exchange  from  members  of 
Congress.  The  exception  proves  that  Congress  intended,  by  the  1st 
section,  to  use  language  broad  enough  to  cover  the  excepted  cases;  and 
that  hence  it  was  necessary  to  introduce  the  positive  exception.  Now 
if.  as  is  thus  implied  by  the  Legislature  itself,  the  1st  section  is  broad 
enough  to  comprehend  the  sale  of  bills  of  exchange,  I  see  not  why  it  is 
not  broad  enough  to  comprehend  the  sale  ofprofessional  services,  or  any  other 
species  of  work  and  labor  in  any  other  art,  mystery,  or  science,  as  well  as  that 
of  law.  And  again:  if  the  prohibitions  do  not  extend  to  engagements 
for  professional  services  with  gentlemen  of  the  law,  do  they  extend  to 
engagements  with  gentlemen  of  the  medical  faculty?  If  not,  a  mem 
ber  of  Congress  might  be  stationed  as  a  surgeon  at  a  military  post,  on 
an  annual  stipend,  without  any  violation  of  the  law. 

"But  let  us  pursue  the  inquiry  one  step  further.  The  2d  section 
of  the  act  having  expressly  excepted  from  the  operation  of  the  law  two 
cases  only — to  wit.  contracts  with  corporations,  and  the  purchase  of 
bills  of  exchange — the  4th  section  uses  the  following  pointed  and  com 
prehensive  terms :  '  that  if  any  officer  of  the  United  States,  in  behalf 
of  the  United  States,  shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  make,  or  enter  into 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  Ill 

any  contract,  bargain,  or  agreement,  in  writing  or  otherwise,  other  than 
such  as  are  herein  excepted,  with  any  member  of  Congress,  such  officer 
so  offending,'  &c..  &c.  Now,  1  think  it  cannot  be  denied  that  an  en 
gagement  with  a  gentleman  of  the  bar,  whereby,  for  a  valuable  considera 
tion,  he  is  to  render  his  professional  services  in  a  given  case,  is  a  contract, 
a  bargain,  an  agreement,  in  the  legal  sense  of  these  terms  (and  in  none  other 
are  they  to  be  regarded) ;  and  it  is  a  bargain,  contract,  or  agreement, 
other  than  the  two  which  had  been  previously  excepted  by  the  act.  It 
is,  therefore,  a  contract  forbidden  expressly  by  the  fourth  section  of  the  act. 

"  Should  it  be  objected  that  this  is  sticking  in  the  letter  of  the  law  T 
to  the  disregard  of  its  policy,  I  cannot  accede  to  the  objection. 

"The  policy  of  the  law  is  to  prevent  the  exercise  of  executive 
influence  over  the  members  of  Congress  by  the  means  of  contracts ;  and 
whether  the  contract  be  for  the  service  of  a  lawyer,  a  physician,  or  a 
mail  carrier,  an  army  purveyor,  or  a  turnpike-road  maker,  it  seems  to 
me  to  be  equally  within  the  policy  and  mischief  of  the  law.  The  only 
difference  is  in  the  permanency  of  the  engagement ;  but  a  succession  of 
single  engagements  is  quite  as  mischievous  as  a  contract  in  solido  ;  and 
if  the  distinction  is  to  be  allowed,  the  law  might  easily  be  evaded. 

' '  Finally,  even  if  the  construction  of  the  law  were  dubious,  yet, 
as  executive  officers,  it  would  become  us  to  remember  that  it  is  a  reme 
dial  law,  enacted  as  a  bar  to  executive  influence ;  that,  in  the  construc 
tion  of  all  such  laws,  the  rule  is  to  give  them  a  large  construction  for 
the  advancement  of  the  remedy  and  the  suppression  of  the  mischief ; 
and  that  it  is  much  safer  to  err  on  the  side  of  forbearance,  than  on  that 
of  possible  encroachment. 

(Signed)  "  WM.  WIRT. 

' '  To  the  Postmaster  General. ' ' 

Hoboken,  f 

Before  entering  upon  a  discussion  of  that  part  of 
the  Report  of  the  Committee  relative  to  the  Hoboken 
question,  it  will  not  be  improper  to  recall  a  few  col 
lateral  facts  which  the  history  of  the  case  discloses. 

The  Committee  were  directed  to  investigate  two 
distinct  subjects : 

First.     Mr.  Colliding 's  charges  against  me;  and, 

Second.     "  To  examine  into  the  statements  made 

f  A  concise  account  of  the  Hoboken  affair  has  been  given,  Chap.  III. 


112  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

by  General  Fry  in   his  communication   to   Hon.  Mr. 
Elaine? 

It  appears  from  the  journal  of  the  Committee 
(page  35)  that  at  their  first  meeting'they  ordered  that 
my  charges  against  Mr.  Conkling  should  be  first  ex 
amined  ;  and  it  also  appears  from  their  Report  (page 
31)  that  the  Committee  did  not  enter  upon  the  investi 
gation  of  Mr.  Oonkling's  charges  against  me. 

The  issue,  then,  which  the  Committee  tried  was, 
whether  Mr.  Corikling  was  guilty  of  the  charges  con 
tained  in  my  letter. 

If  the  accusations  were  unfounded,  and  Mr.  Conk- 
ling  innocent,  the  motive  or  inducement  which  moved 
me  to  make  the  charges  could  in  no  way  affect  Mr. 
Conkling  ;  and  if  he  was  completely  exculpated  by  the 
proof —  and  as  my  conduct  was  not  then  on  trial,  but 
was  expressly  reserved — it  is  difficult  to  understand 
upon  what  principle  the  evidence  relating  to  the 
Hoboken  case,  in  which  I  was  the  accused  or  suspected 
party,  was  admitted.  The  Committee  refrain  from 
giving  an  opinion  upon  the  Hoboken  matter,  because  it 
did  not  affect  the  case  which  they  were  trying.  Why, 
then,  was  it  admitted  ?  And  why  was  it  set  forth  as 
a  prominent  feature  of  the  Committee's  Report  ? 

The  Committee  also  say  they  refrain  from  ex 
pressing  an  opinion  as  to  whether  Theodore  Allen 
is  entitled  to  belief,  and  yet  incorporate  his  evidence 
into  their  Report.  It  was  within  the  knowledge  of 
the  Committee  that,  while  their  Report  would  be  gen 
erally  read  by  the  public,  the  evidence  in  the  case 
would  not  be  read  by  one  in  ten  thousand.  Yet  the 
statement  of  Allen  infests  the  pages  of  their  Report, 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


113 


while  not  one  syllable  is  uttered  by  the  Committee  to 
inform  the  House  and  country  who  and  what  Theodore 
Allen  is. 

Does  their  Report  disclose  the  fact  that  they  ex 
cluded  an  authenticated  copy  of  the  record  of  his  trial 
and  conviction,  on  confession  in  open  court,  for  steal 
ing  from  the  person  —  "  picking  a  pocket "  ?  No. 
(Page  256.)  Do  they  inform  us  that  Allen  served  his 
term  of  four  months  in  the  city  prison  ?  No.  That 
he  kept  a  gambling  house  as  his  vocation  ?  (Page  168.) 
No.  That  some  of  the  most  respected  and  respectable 
men  of  New  York  swear  that  he  was  not  to  be  believed 
under  oath  ?  No.  That  he  served  a  term  of  impris 
onment  in  Fort  Lafayette  by  order  of  General  Dix? 
No.  And  yet  the  Committee  knew  all  this.  But  they 
incorporate  his  testimony  into  their  Report,  and  read 
it  to  the  House. 

But  a  more  startling  fact  remains  to  be  stated. 
Not  one  single  item  of  recorded  evidence  offered  by  me  to 
rebut  this  testimony  of  A  lien  is  alloived  to  appear  in  the 
record,  except  two  letters  set  out  in  my  counsel's 
argument,  and  these  the  Committee  say  were  never 
offered,  and  doubt  their  genuineness.  (Page  33.) 
They  say : 

"  The  following  copies  of  what  purport  to  be  two  letters — one  by 
Col.  L.  C.  BaTcer  and  the  other  by  Gen.  Fry  -  appear  in  a  printed  argu 
ment  by  Hon.  A.  G.  Riddle,  which  has  been  laid  upon  the  tables  of  the 
members  of  this  House."  (Page  31.) 

Now,  as  this  is  stated  in  the  Report,  it  is  certain 
that  the  attention  of  the  Committee  was  called  to 
these  two  letters,  or  "  what  purport  to  be  two  letters,'* 
before  the  Committee  made  its  Report  to  the  House. 


114  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

What,  then,  was  the  plain  duty  of  the  Committee  ? 
Was  it  to  hold  fast  to  Allen  and  his  story,  and  deny 
or  doubt  the  genuineness  of  these  letters,  or  to  exam 
ine  the  records  of  the  War  Department  and  see  if  they 
were  genuine — to  call  upon  and  "examine"  the  writ 
ers,  as  directed  by  the  House,  for  further  proof,  con 
ceding  that  sufficient  had  not  been  offered  ?  Were 
not  the  Committee  appointed  to  investigate  and  learn 
the  truth  ?  And  was  it  not  fair  that  the  testimony  in 
my  favor  should  be  published,  unclouded,  as  well  as 
the  story  of  Allen,  which  even  the  Committee  do  not 
say  they  believe  ? 

Yet  without  any  apparent  effort  to  ascertain 
whether  the  letters  were  or  were  not  genuine,  or  what 
additional  records  I  had  introduced,  or  could  produce, 
the  Committee  concluded  their  Eeport,  withholding 
their  opinion;  but,  by  endorsing  Allen,  and  suppress 
ing  all  the  official  correspondence,  except  such  as 
seemed  to  corroborate  his  testimony,  they  leave  the 
House  and  the  country  to  form  such  an  opinion  as  the 
extracts  from  a  few  of  the  official  records,  ingeniously 
framed  together,  and  supported  by  A  lien's  testimony, 
with  the  quasi  endorsement  of  the  Committee,  would 
naturally  seem  to  warrant. 

Having  published,  as  a  part  of  their  Report,  the 
evidence  of  such  a  man  as  Allen,  attacking  the  repu 
tation  of  the  head  of  a  Government  Bureau,  they  pref 
ace  that  portion  of  their  Report  by  calling  attention 
to  the  fact  that  Mr.  Conkling  had  insinuated  that  there 
was  complicity  between  Major  Haddock  and  me.  The 
Committee  "  do  not  express  an  opinion  "  on  the  sub 
ject  of  that  complicity,  but  what  they  do  say  is  this : 


CONKLING    AND    BLATNE-PRY    CONTROVERSY. 


115 


' '  Detailed  reports  of  specific  acts  of  official  dishonesty  committed 
by  Haddock  had  been  made  to  General  Fry  in  writing  on  several  occa 
sions — one  by  Edward  Meloy*,  dated  February  3,  1865,  and  another  by 
Peter  A.  La  France,  dated  February  28,  1865.  Two  of  the  alleged 
accomplices  of  Haddock  in  the  fraudulent  practices  reported,  named 
Webel  and  Dalton,  were  arrested  and  afterwards  sent  to  the  penitentiary. 
Haddock  himself,  however,  was  not  then  arrested  nor  relieved  from 
duty.  But,  on  the  15th  day  of  March,  1865,  Colonel  L.  C.  Baker  tele 
graphed  to  Provost  Marshal  General  Fry  to  the  effect  that  he  had  dis 
covered  most  astounding  enlistment  frauds  at  Elmira,  with  which 
Major  Haddock  was  connected.  Soon  afterwards  Major  Haddock  was 
arrested  by  order  of  the  Secretary  of  War.  A  Court  Martial  was  con 
vened  in  his  case,  and  Hon.  Roscoe  ConTcling  was  authorized  by  the  War 
Department  to  represent  the  government  at  his  trial." 

The  obvious  meaning  of  this  statement  is,  that  I 
was  duly  informed  of  Major  Haddocks  misconduct, 
but  neglected,  or  refused,  to  relieve  him  from  duty,  or 
bring  him  to  trial ;  and  therefore  it  is  less  remarkable 
that  I  should  hire  Allen  to  destroy  Mr.  Conkling,  who 
was  proceeding  against  Major  Haddock.  Hence  I  am 
forced  to  examine  the  Committee's  statement. 

Now,  is  it  true  that  I  received  the  "  detailed  re 
ports  of  specific  acts  of  official  dishonesty  commit 
ted  by  Haddock"?  And,  first,  as  to  Meloy s  report, 


*  This  Edward  Meloy  was  one  of  Theodore  Allen's  pals.  The  New 
York  Sun  of  July  11,  1891,  says  of  these  two  witnesses  used  by  the 
Committee:  "When  Allen  killed  Eddie  Molloy  in  1878.  Mrs.  Allen  re 
tained  Howe  &  Hummel  to  procure  a  divorce.  Mr.  Hummel  says  that 
Mrs.  Allen  could  have  caused  her  husband's  conviction  for  the  killing 
had  she  wished.  She  was  a  milliner,  with  a  shop  under  the  Continental 
Hotel,  and  a  very  pretty  woman  when  he  married  her.  He  was  insanely 
jealous,  and  employed  Molloy  as  a  spy  on  her.  He  believed  that  Molloy  had 
played  false  and  had  encouraged  lovers  to  visit  Mrs.  Allen  in  his  absence. 
He  followed  Molloy  to  the  house  on  the  northwest  corner  of  Broadway 
and  Houston  Street,  There  Allen  fired  a  pistol,  and  Molloy  fell  dead. 
Allen  ran  to  Police  Headquarters  and  gave  himself  up,  claiming  that  the 
shooting  was  accidental.  He  was  never  tried,  although  the  Grand  Jury 
indicted  him  for  murder  in  the  first  degree." 


116 


CONKLING    AND    ELAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


which  the  Committee  say  was  made  to  me,  and  dated 
February  3,  1865.  As  there  was  no  evidence  offered 
on  this  subject,  except  the  testimony  of  Meloy  himself, 
we  can  readily  test  the  accuracy  of  the  statement  by  a 
reference  to  the  testimony  of  that  witness,  from  which 
it  will  appear  that  he  never  made  any  such,  report. 
Here  is  what  he  says  (page  196)  : 

' '  Question.      '  Did  you  in  that  report  make  any  return  or  state 
ment  with  regard  to  Major  Haddock?  ' 
""Answer.      'No,  sir.' 

' '  Question.     '  When  was  that  report  made  to  Colonel  Baker  f  ' 
"  Answer.      '  On  the  3d  day  of  February,  1865.'  " 

It  seems  that  Meloy  did  make  a  report,  not,  how 
ever,  to  me,  but  to  Colonel  Baker  ;  and  even  in  that 
report  he  referred  to  Captain  Crandall  and  others,  hut 
not  to  Major  Haddock.  So  that  so  much  of  the  state 
ment  as  alleges  that  Meloy  reported  anything  to  me 
against  Major  Haddock  is  incorrect,  and  about  this 
there  could  have  been  no  mistake,  for  the  Committee 
could  not  have  confounded  it  with  the  report  of  the 
latter  part  of  March,  which  Meloy  says  he  made  to 
Colonel  Baker  (and  which  nobody  has  ever  seen),  for 
that  was  not  the  proper  date,  nor  was  it  made  to  me. 

The  next  is  the  report  of  Peter  La  France,  dated 
February  28.  This  was  a  complaint  of  a  substitute 
broker  at  Elmira;  and  as,  at  this  date,  no  suspicion 
against  Major  Haddock  had  reached  my  office,  it  was 
treated  by  my  assistant  like  all  similar  communica 
tions — referred  to  the  officer  complained  of  for  his 
information,  and  was  not  brought  to  my  notice.  Such 
complaints  reached  my  office  by  the  hundred.  But 
supposing  I  had  received,  read  and  inwardly  digested 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  1  1 7 

this  particular  one,  an  inspection  of  it  shows  that  the 
acts  of  which  La  France  complains  were  not  the  acts  of 
wliicli  Major  Haddock  was  convicted  ;  so  that  it  would 
not  have  informed  rne  of  any  fact  of  which  Major 
Haddock  was  guilty,  if  it  had  been  brought  to  my 
attention. 

The  next  statement  in  this  paragraph  is,  that 

"  two  of  the  alleged  accomplices  of  Haddock  in  the  fraudulent  prac 
tices  reported,  named  Webel  and  Dalton,  were  arrested  and  afterwards 
sent  to  the  penitentiary.  Haddock  himself,  however,  was  not  then 
arrested,  nor  relieved  from  duty." 

The  statement  that  Webel  and  Dalton  were  accom 
plices  of  Major  Haddock  is  not  proven  ;  nor  does  there 
appear  to  have  been  any  connection  between  them,  as 
the  record  of  the  trial  of  Webel  and  Dalton,  and  the 
record  of  Major  Haddocks  case,  all  of  which  are  on 
file  in  the  War  Department,  fully  disclose,  and  which 
are  a  standing  refutation  of  this  assertion  of  the  Com 
mittee. 

The  report  then  continues: 

' '  But,  on  the  15th  day  of  March,  1865,  Col.  L.  C.  BaJcer  "tele 
graphed  to  Provost  Marshal  General  Fry  that  he  had  discovered  most 
astounding  enlistment  frauds  at  Elmira,  with  which  Major  Haddock 
was  connected." 

How  did  the  Committee  learn  this  fact  ?  There 
is  no  mention  made  of  this  dispatch  in  any  of  the 
published  evidence!  The  Committee  not  only  sup 
pressed  a  complete  series  of  documents  submitted  in 
evidence  in  my  defense,  and  denied  or  doubted  the 
genuineness  of  two  of  them,  quoted  by  my  counsel  in 
his  argument,  but  they  appear  to  have  extracted  from 
these  documents  the  single  one,  named  above,  which, 


118 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


taken  alone,  seemed  to  be  against  me,  and  used  it 
as  evidence.  That  telegram,  as  before  stated,  nowhere 
appears  in  evidence;  but  it  was  among  the  twenty- 
three  papers  submitted  in  my  defense  on  this  point, 
and  is  the  only  one  among  them  which  the  Committee 
present. 

That  twenty-three  several  and  distinct  official 
papers,  numbered  from  1  to  23,  embracing  all  my 
essential  correspondence  and  official  action  in  the 
Hoboken  case,  were  not  only  offered,  but  admitted,  in 
evidence,  by  the  Committee,  is  a  fact  that  can  be 
proved  by  witnesses,  including  the  Committee's  sworn 
reporter.  And  after  these  exhibits  had  been  presented 
to  the  Committee  (and  some  of  them  read  as  present 
ed),  at  the  request  of  the  District  Attorney  of  New 
York,  the  Secretary  of  War  directed  me  to  proceed  to 
New  York,  where  my  testimony  was  desired  in  a  case 
wherein  the  subject  of  the  Hoboken  enlistments  was 
involved.  Desiring  to  use  a  portion  of  these  papers 
on  that  occasion,  I  had  copies  of  them  prepared  by  the 
clerks  in  my  office,  which  copies  I  placed  in  the  hands 
of  my  counsel,  who  asked  the  privilege  of  withdraw 
ing  the  original,  and  submitting  the  copies,  which  was 
objected  to  until  the  Committee  had  heard  the  argu 
ment,  and  considered  the  testimony,  and  the  Committee 
retained  in  their  possession  both  the  originals  and 
copies. 

After  the  argument  was  completed,  I  despatched 
a  messenger  to  the  Committee  with  a  letter,  addressed 
to  the  senior  of  the  two  members  who  were  present 
when  these  twenty-three  papers  were  received  in  evi 
dence,  which  letter  is  as  follows : 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  119 

"WAR  DEPARTMENT, 

PROVOST  MARSHAL   GENERAL'S   OFFICE, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  July  9,  1866. 
Hon.  B.  M.  BOYER,  House  of  Representatives  : 

Dear  Sir :  I  beg  leave  to  remind  you  of  my  application,  and  your 
decision  thereon,  for  a  lot  of  original  papers,  submitted  in  evidence  by 
me  to  the  Committee  of  which  you  are  a  member.  The  request  for  the 
papers  was  made  by  me  during  the  last  day  on  which  the  Committee 
took  testimony.  The  civil  suit,  which  I  then  told  you  of,  has,  I  be 
lieve,  been  twice  postponed  on  account  of  the  absence  of  these  papers 
and  myself.  The  trial,  as  I  am  now  informed,  takes  place  in  New  York 
City  on  the  llth  instant.  I  therefore  request  that  the  original  papers 
in  question  (those  in  the  Hoboken  case)  be  returned  to  me  to-day.  I 
would  remark,  that  I  have  some  time  since  prepared  and  furnished  the 
reporter  of  the  Committee — Mr.  #7wi/& -- with  certified  copies  of  these 
papers,  so  that  he  has  now  both  copies  and  originals. 

I  address  you  on  this  subject,  instead  of  the  Chairman,  because 
you  were  presiding  when  I  previously  applied  for  the  papers,  and  will 
remember  the  circumstances. 

I  am.  sir,  very  truly  and  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 
(Signed)  JAMES  B.  FRY, 

Provost  Marshal  General.1" 

In  compliance  with  this  request,  the  said  origi 
nals  were  returned  to  me  by  a  page  of  the  House. 
Among  them  were  the  two  letters  embraced  in  Mr.  Hid- 
dle^s  argument,  and  the  telegraphic  dispatch  of  Col 
onel  JSaker  to  me,  of  March  15,  1865,  an  extract  from 
which  is  the  one  we  are  now  discussing,  viz. :  that  "  on 
the  15th  day  of  March,  1865,  Colonel  L.  C.  Baker 
telegraphed  to  Provost  Marshal  General  Fry,  to  the 
effect  that  he  had  discovered  most  astounding  enlist 
ment  frauds  at  Elmira,  with  which  Major  Haddock 
was  connected,"  and  this  dispatch,  as  before  stated,  is 
nowhere  to  be  found  in  the  record,  nor  is  there  any 
reference  to  it  in  the  testimony  published  by  the 
Committee. 


120  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

It  is,  therefore,  not  correct,  as  stated  by  the  Com 
mittee,  that  "  detailed  reports  of  specific  acts  of  official 
dishonesty  committed  by  Haddock  had  been  made 
to  General  Fry" ;  nor  that  " Haddoctts  accomplices 
were  arrested  and  afterwards  sent  to  the  penitentiary  " ; 
nor  is  there  any  testimony,  accompanying  the  report, 
that  supports  the  statement  that  "  Col.  Baker  tele 
graphed  to  General  Fry  that  he  had  discovered  as 
tounding  enlistment  frauds  at  Elmira  with  which 
Major  Haddock  was  connected." 

That  this  is  so,  there  can  be  no  question.  The 
record  proves  it.  Moreover,  the  record  not  only  fails 
to  prove  the  statements  of  the  Committee,  but  it  es 
tablishes  beyond  doubt  or  cavil  exactly  the  reverse  of 
those  statements.  Yet  this  insinuation  as  to  a  com 
plicity  on  my  part  with  Major  Haddock  is  presented 
with  a  stately  formality  and  an  affected  sincerity  of 
purpose.  They  inform  us  it  was  charged  against  Gen 
eral  Fry  by  Mr.  Conkling,  and  then  proceed  to  argue 
the  probability  of  its  truth. 

"Now  mark  how  plain  a  tale  shall  put  them 
down." 

The  record  of  Major  Haddock's  trial  lay  upon  the 
table  of  the  Committee  for  six  consecutive  weeks.  It 
was  the  constant  subject  of  reference  by  counsel  on 
both  sides,  and  by  the  Committee.  It  embraced  a 
complete  history  of  Major  Haddocks  official  life  as 
Acting  Assistant  Provost  Marshal  General.  In  that 
record  is  set  forth  each  separate  and  distinct 
offense  of  Major  Haddock,  with  time,  place  and  cir 
cumstances, — his  motives,  object,  associates,  accom 
plices,  instruments, — everything  which  Mr.  Conkling 


CONKLING    AND    ELAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  121 

could  collect,  by  reason  of  the  appointment  he  held, 
and  the  extraordinary  powers  and  means  of  obtaining 
information  with  which  he  had  been  invested.  The 
testimony  alone  comprises  nearly  fifteen  hundred 
pages,  with  all  of  which  Mr.  Conkling  was  entirely 
familiar.  In  all  this  record  there  is  not  one  sentence, 
syllable,  or  word,  directly  or  indirectly  charging  me 
with  the  most  remote  suspicion  of  complicity  with 
Major  Haddock,  or  any  knowledge,  guilty  or  otherwise, 
as  to  Major  Haddocks  offenses,  or  with  any  effort  to 
conceal  them. 

The  questions  as  to  Major  Haddocks  crimes  and 
who  were  his  accomplices,  had  been  judicially  deter 
mined.  I  was  never  accused.  Yet,  upon  this  point, 
the  Committee  are  silent.  They  ignore  proof  which 
completely  vindicates  me ;  they  deny  that  such  proof 
was  ever  presented,  and  then  select  from  that  which 
they  assure  us  was  never  offered,  an  unfavorable  ex 
tract,  and  incorporate  it  in  their  report,  as  being  in 
evidence. 

The  reader  of  this  review  cannot  fail  to  be  struck 
with  the  disregard  shown  by  the  Committee  for  their 
own  record,  but  it  is  not  deemed  necessary  to  dwell 
upon  this. 

In  the  foregoing  review,  all  the  important  points, 
and  some  rather  unimportant  ones,  made  in  the  report 
of  the  Committee,  have  been  discussed.  Let  the  reader 
judge  both  the  Committee  and  me  by  the  record  they 
have  made  of  the  case. 

In  conclusion,  it  may  be  asserted  with  confidence  : 

I.  That  said  Committee  was  an  unfair  tribunal. 

II.  That   every  material  allegation  of  my  letter  to 


1352s  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

Mr.  Blaine  was  sustained  in  its  legitimate  meaning  by 
the  evidence  presented  to  that  Committee. 

These  allegations  were  substantially  as  follows : 

1.  That  Mr.  ConUing  made  a  case  for  himself  by  his  dispatch  of 
July  29,  1863. 

2.  That  he  received  pay  from   the  United   States  for  service  as 
Judge  Advocate   and  pay  as  a  member  of  Congress  for  the  same  time. 

3.  That  he  was  as  anxious  to  prevent  investigation  at  Utica  as  to 
secure  it  at  Elmira.     This  charge  would  have  been  more  fully  estab 
lished  if  the  documents  which  accompanied  my  letter  to  Mr.  Blaine 
had  been  duly  considered  and  the  testimony  offered  had  been  admitted. 

4.  That  his  previous  relations  with  me  were  of  such  a  nature  as 
to  explain  the  animosity  apparent  in  his  attack  upon  me  in  the  House 
of  Representatives. 

5.  That  he  endeavored  and  failed  to  secure  any  modification  of 
my  course  in  regard  to  the  removal  of  Captain  Richardson. 

6.  That  he  was  instrumental  in  securing  the  appointment  of  Cap 
tain  Crandall. 

7.  That  he  attempted  and  failed  to  secure  Captain  CrandalV  s  res 
toration,  after  removal. 

8.  That  he  was  clothed  with  extraordinary  powers  for  the  investi 
gation  of  frauds  and  the  prosecution  of  offenders  in  Western  New  York 

,•>•*- 9.  That  it  was  his  duty — and  a  duty  which,  if  his  indefinite 
charges  made  in  the  House  against  me  were  true,  he  grossly  neglected 
— to  report  promptly  anything  which  came  to  his  knowledge  pointing 
to  my  complicity  in  the  frauds  perpetrated  upon  the  government  in  my 
branch  of  the  service. 

These  propositions  have  been  established  from 
the  evidence  admitted  by  the  Committee — chiefly 
from  evidence  which  the  Committee  ignored  in  their 
report,  and  partly  from  an  application  of  this  evidence 
to  the  statements  made  by  me,  as  they  were  in  fact. 

Not  only  did  this  Committee  admit  evidence 
bearing  upon  the  charges  against  me  in  the  Hoboken 
affair,  manifestly  with  great  injustice  to  me,  but  they 
failed  to  consider  in  my  favor  the  documentary 
evidence  in  that  case  presented  by  my  counsel,  and 


CONKLING    AND    ELAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  123 

denied  ever  having  seen  the  documents,  although 
using  one  of  them  in  their  own  report,  which,  taken 
by  itself,  appeared  to  militate  against  me.  Among 
twenty-three  collated  documents,  which,  together,  ex 
plained  the  Hoboken  case,  the  Committee  saw  only 
one  which,  taken  alone,  might  bear  a  construction 
unfavorable  to  me.  Here  I  leave  the  Committee's 
Report,  in  order  to  close  the  whole  subject  by  a  few 
general  remarks. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

GENERAL    REMARKS. 

In  estimating  the  injustice  of  Mr.  Conkling's  as 
sault  upon  my  private  and  official  character,  it  is 
proper  to  recall  the  fact  that  the  work  of  the  Provost 
Marshal  General's  Bureau  had  been  completed.  The 
war  was  over,  and  a  million  of  soldiers  which  that 
Bureau  had  mustered  had  been  or  were  being  dis 
charged.  Over  twenty-six  millions  of  commutation 
money  collected  by  the  Provost  Marshal  General  had 
been  turned  into  the  treasury,  and  every  dollar  of 
public  money  entrusted  to  his  keeping  had  been  prop 
erly  accounted  for;  and,  notwithstanding  the  unpopu 
larity  of  the  Conscription  Laws,  by  which  men  were 
enforced  into  the  military  service,  and  the  many  in 
stances  of  hardship  and  suffering  which  the  enforce 
ment  of  the  draft  occasioned,  by  no  person  except  Mr. 
Conkling  had  my  integrity  been  assailed. 

My  accounts  have  all  been  passed  upon  by  the 
accounting  officers  and  found  to  be  correct. 

The  records  of  the  War  Department  show  an 
honorable  service  for  more  than  forty  years,  including 
my  administration  of  the  Provost  Marshal  General's 
Office. 

During  the  whole  period  of  my  official  service,  I 
have  had  the  approval  of  my  military  superiors.     My 
only  accuser  was  Mr.  Conkling,  who  felt  aggrieved— 
I  having  caused  to  be  dismissed  from  office  certain 

124 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  125 

officials  of  his  district  who  were,  I  believe,  his  friends 
and  supporters,  and  had  been  appointed  on  his  recom 
mendation. 

Incensed  by  Mr.  Conkl  ing's  unjust  and  erroneous 
accusations,  tittered  in  a  forum  in  which  I  could  not 
appear,  I  prepared  a  letter  on  the  subject  to  Mr. 
Elaine,  then  a  member  of  the  House,  which,  at  his  in 
stance,  was  read  at  the  clerk's  desk,  by  permission  of 
the  House. 

This  letter  was  intended  as  a  refutation  of  the 
charges  preferred  by  Mr.  Conkling,  and  cited  official 
records  which  showed  a  failure  on  the  part  of  Mr. 
Conkling  to  perform  the  duties  of  a  Special  Judge 
Advocate  as  directed  by  the  War  Department,  by 
failing  to  investigate  or  prosecute  frauds  in  the 
Western  Division  of  New  York,  except  in  one  case  at 
Elmira,  for  which  case  he  received  from  the  govern 
ment  the  sum  of  three  thousand  dollars,  besides  his 
salary  as  a  member  of  Congress. 

It  will  hardly  be  claimed  that  I  had  no  right  to 
deny  or  refute  the  accusation  of  Mr.  Conkling,  nor 
that  I  was  compelled  to  have  the  consent  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  to  defend  my  reputation. 

The  accusations  had  been  uttered  in  the  House 
of  Representatives,  were  printed  in  the  Globe,  and 
published  to  the  world.  What  was  I  to  do  ?  The 
courts  were  not  open  to  me,  for  Mr.  Conkling  could 
not  be  held  accountable  before  them  for  official  utter 
ances  in  the  House  of  Representatives  ;  and  I  aimed 
to  set  myself  right  by  presenting  a  true  statement  in 
the  form  of  a  letter  to  Mr.  Blaine,  the  member  of  the 
House  who  had  defended  me.  The  desired  effect  was 


126  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

in  fact  produced,  for  the  committee  of  investigation 
not  only  failed  to  find  any  of  the  accusations  against 
me  true,  but  failed  to  investigate  them,  notwithstand 
ing  they  were  ordered  by  the  House  to  do  so. 

It  could  not  be  expected  that  suffering  under  the 
insult  of  Mr.  Conkling's  accusations,  I  would  be  in  a 
frame  of  mind  to  view  the  situation  with  complacency. 
Honey  is  not  used  for  a  writing  fluid  in  repelling 
calumny.  I  was  forced  to  set  down  in  plain  words 
what  I  believed  to  be  a  true  statement  of  the  case,  and 
fortify  it  by  the  official  records. 

This  letter,  accompanied  by  official  documents 
corroborating  it,  gave  offense  to  Mr.  Conkling  and  his 
friends,  and  was,  long  after  it  had  been  read  in  the 
House,  regarded  as  a  breach  of  privilege,  and  the 
Chairman  of  the  Investigating  Committee,  in  urging 
the  adoption  of  his  report  censuring  me,  and  eulogizing 
Mr.  Conkling,  said : 

' '  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  state  to  the  House — I  would  not  have  stated  it 
but  for  the  inquiry  just  presented  by  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania 
— why  the  Committee,  after  having  found  a  flagrant  violation  of 
privileges  of  a  member  of  the  House,  and  of  the  House  itself,  stopped 
without  recommending  any  proceeding  by  the  House  against  the  cul 
prit. 

'  'The  inquiry  is  a  very  pertinent  one,  which  would  naturally  occur 
to  every  mind,  and  one  which  received  the  careful  attention  of  the 
Committee." 

After  giving  various  reasons  the  Chairman  con 
tinues  : 

' '  Then  there  was  another  reason  —  the  most  potent  of  all — that  oper 
ated  upon  the  mind  of  the  Committee  in  omitting  to  present  any  further 
resolution.  It  is  that  the  breach  of  privilege  of  the  House  was  com 
mitted  so  entirely  in  conjunction  with  the  action  of  a  member  of  this 
House,  that  the  two  cannot  be  separated.  The  letter  is  written  contain 
ing  on  its  face  the  evidence  that  it  was  meant  to  be  used  somewhere, 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  127 

and  was  not  designed  simply  for  the  information  of  the  gentleman  from 
Maine  [Mr.  Blaine],  to  whom  it  was  addressed." 

From  this  statement  it  is  clear  that  summary  pro 
ceedings  against  me  would  have  followed  had  it  not 
been  that  a  member  of  the  House  was  implicated  in 
the  transaction,  and  it  would  seem  that  such  "divin 
ity  doth  hedge  "  a  member  of  Congress  *  that  he  not 
only  escapes  punishment  for  his  own  offense,  but  also 
protects  the  other  "  culprit." 

The  Chairman,  continuing  his  remarks  in  support 
of  the  Committee's  report,  having  been  the  judge  who 
had  tried  the  case,  and  supposed  to  be  free  from  bias, 
prejudice  and  favoritism,  added  : 

"  I  do  not  wish  to  detain  the  House  any  longer.  I  repeat  what  has 
been  said  in  this  report,  that  a  more  careful  and  more  malicious  and 
wanton  violation  of  the  privileges  of  the  House  and  its  members  has 
not  been  brought  to  the  notice  of  any  member  of  the  Committee.  There 
is  not  to  be  found  any  more  hurtful  libel  upon  any  member  of  this 
body  in  the  history  of  its  proceedings.  It  is  due  to  ourselves,  it  is  due 
to  this  body,  if  we  are  to  preserve  the  dignity  of  the  character  of  a  rep 
resentative  of  the  American  people,  that  such  indignities  should  cease. 
I  am  unwilling  to  consume  the  time  of  the  House,  but  I  am  unwilling 
to  sit  down  without  saying  the  House  should  do  this  justice  to  my 
friend  from  New  York  [Mr.  ConUing] ,  a  justice  he  is  entitled  to,  etc." 

One  would  suppose  after  reading  the  Chairman's 
commentary  on  my  letter,  delivered  ex  cathedra  as  the 
judgment  of  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  — the 
chief  judge  of  the  tribunal  that  had  tried  the  issue 
between  Mr.  Conkling  and  me — that  the  letter  had 

*  A  stronger  case  is  that  of  Preston  S.  Brooks.  While  a  member  of 
the  House,  in  1856,  he  went  to  the  Senate  Chamber  where  Senator  Sum- 
ner  sat  quietly  at  his  desk,  and  for  words  spoken  in  debate,  struck  him 
on  the  head  with  a  cane,  felling  him  to  the  floor,  and  there  beat  him 
nearly  to  death.  Brooks  was  not  punished  by  either  House  or  Senate. 
A  resolution  for  his  expulsion  was  offered  in  the  House,  but  failed  to 
pass.  Brooks  resigned  and  was  re  elected. 


128 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


done  irreparable  mischief  to  Mr.  Conkling,  and  struck 
a  fatal  blow  at  the  "dignity  of  the  character  of  the 
representatives  of  the  American  people." 

But  after  a  careful  perusal  of  the  letter  it  will 
be  discovered  that  it  is  chiefly  devoted  to  a  refutation 
of  the  accusations  made  by  Mr.  Conkling  on  the  floor 
of  the  House,  where  I  had  no  right  or  opportunity  to 
be  heard. 

An  examination  of  the  letter  will  show  that  the 
only  charges  preferred  against  Mr.  Conkling  are : 

First,  "  That  as  hereafter  shown,  he,  Mr.  Conk 
ling,  was  as  zealous  in  preventing  prosecutions  at 
Utica  as  he  was  in  making  them  at  Elmira ;  and  the 
main  ground  of  the  difficulty  between  Mr.  Conkling 
and  myself  has  been  that  I  wanted  exposure  at  both 
places,  while  he  wanted  concealment  at  one." 

Second,  "  Whether  his  [Mr.  Conkling's]  action  in 
exercising  the  functions  of  Judge  Advocate  and  receiv 
ing  pay  therefor  from  the  United  States  to  the  amount 
of  $3000,  while  receiving  his  compensation  as  a  mem 
ber  of  Congress,  was  a  violation  of  the  letter  or  spirit, 
or  both,  of  Article  I.,  Section  2,  of  the  Constitution, 
I  leave  others  to  decide." 

In  reference  to  these  charges,  it  is  enough  I  think 
to  recall  the  facts  that  Mr.  Conkling  zealously  prose 
cuted  the  Elmira  frauds,  but  made  no  effort  to  prose 
cute  the  Utica  frauds. 

On  the  other  hand,  he  used  his  influence  and 
power  at  the  War  Department  in  behalf  of  the  ac 
cused  parties  at  Utica.  Mr.  Conkling  was  appointed  a 
Special  Judge  Advocate  by  the  Secretary  of  War  on 
the  3d  day  of  April,  1865,  and  directed  "to  investi- 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


129 


gate  all  cases  of  fraud  in  the  Provost  Marshal's  De 
partment  of  the  Western  Division  of  New  York,  and 
all  misdemeanors  connected  with  recruiting  " 

The  first  Provost  Marshal  of  the  District,  Rich 
ardson,  had  been  dismissed,  and  the  second  Provosfc 
Marshal  and  members  of  the  Board  of  Enrollment  of 
the  Utica  District  in  the  Western  Division  of  New 
York,  had  been  suspended  from  office  for  malfeasance 
on  the  recommendation  of  Major  Luddington,  Assistant 
Inspector  General,  U.  S.  A.,  who  had  been  sent  to 
Utica  by  the  War  Department  to  investigate  the  man 
agement  of  that  office. 

After  a  thorough  examination,  Major  Luddington 
made  a  report  concluding  with  the  following  :  "  I  re 
spectfully  recommend  that  every  member  of  the  Board 
of  Enrollment  for  the  twenty-first  [Utica]  District  of 
New  York  be  dismissed  the  service,  and  that  the 
money  in  possession  of  Captain  Crandallbe  seized." 

On  the  4th  of  February  previous,  Col.  N.  G.  Ax- 
tell,  192d  New  York  Volunteers,  stationed  at  Albany, 
protested  to  the  Adjutant  General  of  the  Army,  in 
which  he  said  :  "  The  recruits  mustered  at  Utica  are, 
without  doubt,  bounty  jumpers,  and  should  not  have 
been  mustered  by  an  intelligent  mustering  officer." 

Lieutenant  Lott,  commanding  subrendezvous  at 
Auburn,  reported  March  4th,  "  nine-tenths  of  the  re 
cruits  sent  here  from  that  [Utica]  office  are  the  most 
worthless  set  of  scoundrels  you  ever  put  your  eyes  on;" 
and  on  the  20th  of  February  the  present,  1891,  Sec 
retary  of  the  Navy,  Hon.  B.  F.  Tracy  then  command 
ing  the  rendezvous  at  Elmira,  made  a  report  to  the 
office  of  the  Adjutant  General  in  which  he  said  :  "  The 


130  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

[Utica]  district  is  filling  its  quota  with  bounty  jump 
ers.  Fifteen  deserted  from  Auburn  in  one  squad. 
This  is  giving  to  the  District  an  undue  advantage  over 
the  other  Districts.  There  is  a  rush  of  bounty  jump 
ers  from  Utica." 

All  this  evidence,  together  with  the  fact  that  the 
Provost  Marshal  of  the  Utica  District  had  in  his  pos 
session  over  twenty-six  thousand  dollars,  belonging  to 
recruits,  and  bounty  brokers,  which  he  had  refused  to 
turn  over,  although  repeatedly  ordered  by  his  superior 
officer  so  to  do,  was  placed  in  Mr.  Conkling's  hands, 
on  the  day  [April  3],  he  was  appointed  Special  Judge 
Advocate  to  "  investigate  all  cases  of  fraud  in  the 
Provost  Marshal's  Department  of  the  Western  Division 
of  New  York,  and  all  misdemeanors  connected  with 
recruiting." 

Instead  of  making  any  investigation  of  the  Utica 
office  he  at  once,  before  leaving  the  War  Department, 
on  the  day  of  his  appointment  to  investigate  all  cases 
of  fraud  in  the  Western  Division  of  New  York,  in 
which  Division  Utica  W7as  included,  wrote  a  letter  to 
the  Secretary  of  War,  in  which  he  said, 

' '  Having  been  authorized  and  requested  by  the  Secretary  of  War, 
to  examine  certain  transactions  in  the  Bureau  of  the  Provost  Marshal 
General  relating  to  the  Western  Division  of  the  State  of  New  York,  I 
advise  and  recommend  that  the  order  suspending  Captain  Peter  B. 
Crandall  and  the  members  of  the  Enrolling  Board  be  revoked  and 
that  said  Board  be  reinstated," 

thus  showing  that  he  knew  his  appointment  covered 
the  alleged  Utica  frauds,  and  taking  jurisdiction  of 
them,  but  moving  at  once  to  prevent  prosecutions  in 
stead  of  to  make  them. 

Mr.  Conkling  made  no  investigation  of  the  Utica 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  131 

frauds,  there  were  no  arrests,  no  prosecution,  and  no 
trial  there,  while  he  devoted  his  services  to  the  value 
of  $3000,  to  the  prosecution  of  Major  Haddock  who 
was  tried  by  court-martial  at  Elmira ;  and  the  fact 
that  he  had  been  appointed  to  prosecute  all  cases  of 
fraud  in  the  Division  which  included  both  Elmira  and 
Utica,  and  did  zealously  prosecute  in  Elmira  and  did 
not  prosecute  in  Utica,  but  on  the  contrary,  appealed 
to  the  Secretary  of  War  in  behalf  of  the  accused 
parties,  was  the  reason  why  I  stated  that  Mr.  Conk- 
ling  "  as  hereafter  shown,  was  as  zealous  in  preventing 
prosecutions  at  Utica  as  he  was  in  making  them  at 
Elmira." 

As  already  stated  the  letter  was  chiefly  devoted 
to  a  refutation  of  the  charges  made  by  Mr.  Conkling 
on  the  floor  of  the  House.  It  also  pointed  out  the 
fact  that  frauds  had  been  perpetrated  in  the  Utica 
District,  and  that  Mr.  Conkling  had  been  appointed  a 
Special  Judge  Advocate  to  investigate  them.  That 
the  Utica  frauds  having  been  brought  to  Mr.  Conk- 
ling's  attention,  and  he  having  failed  to  investigate  or 
prosecute  them,  I  stated  in  the  letter  that,  "  as  here 
after  shown,  Mr.  Conkling  was  as  zealous  in  prevent 
ing  prosecutions  at  Utica  as  he  was  in  making  them  at 
Elmira,"  and  accompanied  the  letter  with  authenticated 
copies  of  the  War  Department  records,  upon  which 
the  letter  was  founded,  showing  the  existence  of  the 
Utica  frauds,  and  showing  also  that  instead  of  investi 
gating  or  prosecuting  them,  Mr.  Conkling  on  the  day 
he  was  appointed  Special  Judge  Advocate,  and  before 
leaving  the  War  Department  advised  the  Secretary  of 
War,  in  writing,  to  revoke  the  order  suspending  from 


132 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


office  the  delinquent  officers  at  Utica,  and  recom 
mended  their  reinstatement. 

It  was  upon  the  official  records  that  I  based  my 
assertion  as  to  Mr.  Conkling's  failure  to  investigate 
the  Utica  frauds,  for  I  preface  that  assertion  with  the 
words,  "  as  hereafter  shown" — referring  to  the  official 
records  accompanying  the  letter. 

The  Committee  omitted  the  official  documents 
from  their  report,  and  so  far  as  appears  gave  them 
no  consideration,  refused  to  receive  the  testi 
mony  which  I  offered  in  support  of  my  assertion  con 
cerning  Mr.  Conkling's  action  and  inaction  in  the 
prosecution  of  frauds,  and  then  pronounced  my  asser 
tion  to  be  entirely  without  foundation.  But  even 
with  the  assertion  thus  shorn  of  the  documents  upon 
which  I  based  it  and  deprived  of  the  testimony  I 
offered  in  its  support,  the  Committee's  view  of  it  is 
hardly  sound.  Unbiased  minds  will,  1  think,  admit 
that  my  assertion  was  merely  my  opinion  based  upon 
the  documents  I  gave  with  it.  If  the  documents  sus 
tain  the  assertion  then  my  opinion  is  sound,  if  notr 
then  I  am  mistaken.  Whether  I  am  mistaken  or  not  I 
certainly  had  the  moral  right  to  present  the  docu 
mentary  facts  in  my  office,  under  the  provocation  of 
Mr.  Conkling's  accusations. 

Upon  the  second  charge,  there  is  no  dispute  as  to 
the  facts.  It  is  conceded  by  the  Committee  that  Mr. 
Conkling  was  appointed  a  Special  Judge  Advocate  to 
investigate  frauds  in  the  Western  Division  of  New 
York,  and  that  he  performed  the  services  of  Judge 
Advocate  while  he  was  under  pay  as  a  Member  of  Con 
gress  from  the  Utica  District;  that  he  received  from 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  133 

the  United  States  for  his  services  as  Special  Judge 
Advocate  $3000,  and  his  salary  as  a  Congressman  be 
sides;  and  I  believing  that  was  a  violation  of  law,  called 
attention  to  the  facts,  but  without  expressing  any  opin 
ion,  adding  that  the  question  was  one  "  for  others  to  de 
cide,1''  and  that  is  all  there  is  of  the  second  charge. 
Yet,  by  far  the  greater  portion  of  the  Committee's 
report  is  an  argument  attempting  to  show  that  Mr. 
Conkling  had  not  violated  the  law. 

The  best  that  could  be  said  of  the  transaction  was 
the  statement  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  in 
reply  to  Mr.  Randall,  of  Pennsylvania,  viz.:  . 

Mr.  Randall: 

"  Preliminary  to  the  '  question  '  I  desire  to  say  a  word  or  two.  I 
have  had  no  time  to  read  this  report,  nor  do  I  wish  in  any  manner  to 
enter  into  the  personal  matters  to  which  it  relates,  but  I  want  to  know 
of  the  Chairman  whether  this  Committee  in  their  report  justify  the 
taking  of  employment  by  a  Member  of  Congress  who  is  in  receipt  of  his 
salary  as  a  Member  of  Congress,  and  taking  payment  for  such  employ 
ment  in  addition  to  his  emoluments  as  a  Member  of  Congress.  I  wrant 
to  know  whether  the  Committee  irrespective  of  the  parties  involved  in 
this  case,  justify  that  or  not." 

Mr.  Sliellabarger : 

' '  The  Committee  find  in  their  report  that  a  Member  of  Congress 
who  is  qualified  as  such  shall  not  hold  any  office  or  receive  any  com 
pensation  therefor.  They  find  that  a  Member  of  Congress,  after  the 
4th  of  March,  the  day  on  which  his  pay  commences  under  the  law, 
cannot  receive  the  salary  of  any  other  office  during  that  time.  A  Mem 
ber  of  Congress  may  be  employed  by  the  Government  as  counsel,  and 
such  employment  may  be  competently  performed,  and  that  is  what 
occurred  in  this  case. ' ' 

Mr. Randall: 

"  Then  I  understand  the  gentleman  to  say  that  he  believed  a  Mem 
ber  of  Congress,  subsequent  to  the  4th  of  March,  and  prior  to  the  ex 
piration  of  his  term,  can  be  employed  by  the  Government  in  another 
capacity,  and  receive  compensation  therefor. ' ' 


134  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

Mr.  Shellabarger  : 

1 '  That  is  what  the  Committee  find  on  the  subject,  if  the  employ 
ment  is  not  an  office. ' ' 

Mr.  Randall  : 

' '  Can  he  be  employed  against  the  Government  ?' ' 

Mr.  Sliellalarger  : 

"In  favor  of  the  Government  he  may  be  employed; — against  the 
Government  he  cannot  be  employed,  because  there  is  a  statute  of  1864 
which  expressly  provides  in  this  identical  case  of  Mr.  ConWing,  that  is 
to  say — it  provides  no  Member  of  Congress  shall  be  permitted  to  be  em 
ployed  by  any  person  in  any  proceeding  before  a  Court-martial, 
furnishing  a  complete  Ipgislative  determination  that  he  may 
be  employed  in  that  identical  case  on  the  other  side,  because  the  pro 
vision  of  1864  in  saying  that  a  Member  of  Congress  may  not  be  em 
ployed  by  any  other  person,  would  imply  that  he  may  be  employed  in 
that  identical  case  by  the  Government  itself. ' ' 

Mr.  Randall : 

' '  That  is  a  fine  distinction, — a  distinction  without  a  difference. 
If  it  be  not  a  violation  of  the  letter,  it  is  to  my  mind  a  violation  of  its 
spirit."* 

*  Mr.  Eandall  might  have  added  that  while  the  act  of  1864  forbids 
the  employment  of  members  of  Congress  against  the  Government,  the  act 
of  1808  as  interpreted  by  Attorney  General  Wirt  distinctly  forbids  their 
employment  for  a  valuable  consideration  by  the  Government,  and  thus 
the  Committee's  inference  from  the  act  of  1864  is  contradicted  by  the  ex 
press  terms  and  meaning  of  the  act  of  1808  as  interpreted  by  the  Attor 
ney  General  [see  his  opinion  in  full  Chapter  V.] .  He  says  :  "The 
fourth  section  uses  the  following  pointed  and  comprehensive  terms  : 
4  That  if  any  officer  of  the  United  States,  in  behalf  of  the  United  States 
shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  make,  or  enter  into,  any  contract,  bargain 
or  agreement,  in  writing  or  otherwise,  other  than  such  as  are  herein  ex- 
cepted,  with  any  Member  of  Congress,  such  officer  so  offending,'  &c.,  &c. 
Now,  I  think  it  cannot  be  denied  that  an  engagement  with  a  gentleman  of 
the  bar,  whereby,  for  a  valuable  consideration,  he  is  to  render  his  profes 
sional  services  in  a  given  case,  is  a  contract,  a  bargain,  an  agreement,  in 
the  legal  sense  of  these  terms  (and  in  none  other  are  they  to  be  regarded); 
and  it  is  a  bargain,  contract,  or  agreement,  other  than  the  two  which 
had  been  previously  excepted  by  the  Act.  It  is  therefore,  a  contract  for 
bidden  expressly  by  the  fourth  section  of  the  Act. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  135 

Mr.  Randall,  however,  puts  it  stronger  than  the 
language  of  my  letter,  which  reads :  "  Whether  his 
action  [Conkling]  in  exercising  the  function  of  Judge 
Advocate  and  receiving  pay  therefor  from  the  United 
States  to  the  amount  of  $3000  while  receiving  his 
compensation  as  a  member  of  Congress  was  a  viola 
tion  of  the  letter  or  spirit,  or  both,  of  Article  I.,  Section 
2,  of  the  Constitution,  Heave  others  to  decide.'1'' 

This  opinion,  expressed  by  Mr.  Handall,  does  not 
seem  to  have  shocked  the  sensibilities  of  the  House. 
It  did  not  occur  to  any  of  the  Members  that  their 
"  privileges  "  or  the  privileges  of  the  House  had  been 
assailed,  or  its  dignity  insulted  by  Mr.  Randall.  Yet 
when  a  less  obnoxious  presentation  of  the  matter  was 
written  down  in  a  letter  by  me  and  read  at  the  clerk's 
desk,  by  the  consent  of  the  House,  the  Chairman  of 
the  Committee  appointed  to  investigate  the  subject 
judicially,  having,  as  he  claimed,  made  an  exhaustive 
examination  and  report,  declared  on  the  floor  of  the 
House  that  "A  more  careful  and  more  malicious  and 
wanton  violation  of  the  privileges  of  the  House,  and 
of  its  members,  has  not  been  brought  to  the  notice  of 
any  member  of  the  Committee,"  and  at  the  close  of  the 
debate  added  : 

"  Should  it  be  objected  that  this  is  sticking  in  the  letter  of  the  law  to 
the  disregard  of  its  policy.  I  cannot  accede  to  the  objection. 

"  The  policy  of  the  law  is  to  prevent  the  exercise  of  executive  in 
fluence  over  the  Members  of  Congress  by  the  means  of  contracts ;  and 
whether  the  contract  be  for  the  service  of  a  lawyer,  a  physician,  or  a 
mail  carrier,  an  army  purveyor,  or  a  turnpike  road  maker,  it  seems  to 
me  to  be  equally  within  the  policy  and  mischief  of  the  law.  The  only 
difference  is  in  the  permanency  of  the  engagement ;  but  a  succession  of 
single  engagements  is  quite  as  mischievous  as  a  contract  in  solido  ;  and 
if  the  distinction  is  to  be  allowed,  the  law  might  be  easily  evaded." 


136  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

"  I  am  unwilling  to  sit  down  without  saying  the 
House  should  do  this  justice  to  my  friend  from  New 
York  "  [Mr.  Conkling],  but  made  no  reference  to  his 
"  friend's  "  assault  on  my  character,  which  called  out 
the  letter  under  consideration. 


The  resolution  directed  the  Committee  "  to  in 
vestigate  the  statement  and  charges  made  by  Honora 
ble  TCoscoe  Conkling  in  his  place  last  week  against 
Provost  Marshal  General  Fry,  and  his  bureau  :  whether 
any  frauds  had  been  perpetrated  in  his  office  in  con 
nection  with  the  recruiting  service." 

o 

This  was  the  main  object  of  the  resolution.  The 
Provost  Marshal  General  of  the  United  States  was  a 
high  officer  of  the  government,  clothed  with  extraor 
dinary  authority  by  law,  and  entrusted  with  the  col 
lection  and  disbursement  of  millions  of  public  money. 
On  his  integrity  and  efficiency  depended  the  success 
or  failure  of  the  recruitment  of  the  armies  that  were 
fighting  for  the  maintenance  of  the  government. 

Being  charged  by  a  Member  of  Congress  on  the 
floor  of  the  House  with  malfeasance  in  office,  and 
inefficiency,  it  was  not  strange  that  a  committee  was 
ordered  by  the  House  to  investigate,  and  discover 
whether  these  grave  charges  against  a  trusted  officer 
of  the  government,  of  high  rank,  whose  reputation 
was  hitherto  without  stain  or  blemish,  who  had  been 
honored  for  gallant  conduct  in  the  field,  was  guilty  or 
innocent.  For  it  was  important  that  the  House  and 
the  country  should  know  whether  this  public  servant 
had  betrayed  his  trust  and  brought  discredit  upon  the 
service  and  the  country,  or  had  been  falsely  accused. 


CONKLING    AND    ELAINE  FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


137 


The  House  directed  the  Committee  "  Also  to 
examine  into  the  statements  made  by  Gen.  Fry  in  his 
communication  to  Hon.  Mr.  Elaine,  read  in  the  House." 

It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that  the  main  work  of 
the  Committee  was  the  investigation  of  the  Conkling 
charges  against  the  Provost  Marshal  General,  but  the 
Committee  confined  its  labor  to  the  vindication  of  Mr. 
Conkling,  and  paid  no  attention  to  the  charges  which 
it  was  especially  directed  to  investigate. 

The  excuse  was,  in  the  words  of  the  Committee, 

' '  In  consideration  that  the  character  of  a  Member  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  has  been  publicly  assailed  with  serious  charges  in  a 
letter  emanating  from  the  head  of  an  important  bureau  of  the  govern 
ment,  addressed  to  another  Member  of  the  House  of  Representatives, 
and  by  him  caused  to  be  read  to  the  House,  and  thus  made  a  part  of 
the  published  and  permanent  record  of  its  proceedings,  we  deem  that  it 
was  the  privilege  of  the  Member  thus  gravely  charged,  and  due  also  to 
the  House  itself,  that  your  Committee  should  proceed  without  delay  to 
the  investigation  of  at  least  that  branch  of  the  case  which  relates  to  the 
charges  preferred  by  Provost  Marshal  General  Fry  against  the  Hon. 
Roscoe  Conkling  ' ' 

It  seems  not  to  have  concerned  the  Committee 
that  the  character  of  an  officer  of  the  army  of  high 
rank,  "the  head  of  an  important  bureau  of  the  gov 
ernment,"  had  been  "publicly  assailed  with  serious 
charges"  in  the  House,  "and  thus  made  a  part  of  the 
published  and  permanent  record  of  its  proceedings." 

Furthermore,  the  Member  charged  was  not  ac 
cused  in  his  official  character  as  a  Member  of  Congress, 
but  in  his  official  character  of  an  inferior,  quasi-military 
officer — a  SpecialJudge  Advocate  for  a  temporary  and 
local  service.  The  Committee  apparently  believed 
that  it  was  of  more  importance  to  the  country,  at  least 
to  the  House,  that  a  Committee  of  the  House  should 


138  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

be  able  to  report  the  efficient  service  ^  of  the  Special 
Judge  Advocate  for  the  Western  Division  of  New 
York,  than  to  show  whether  the  Provost  Marshal 
General  of  the  United  States  was  corrupt  and  ineffi 
cient,  or  honest  and  capable  in  the  management  of  the 
great  interests  which  had  been  placed  in  his  hands. 

NATURE    OF    A    CONGRESSIONAL    COMMITTEE. 

A  committee  of  investigation  appointed  by  the 
Speaker,  pursuant  to  a  resolution  of  the  House,  is  a 
tribunal  possessing  the  function  of  a  court  of  justice. 
It  is  clothed  with  great  authority :  with  the  power  to 
send  for  persons  and  papers ;  to  subpoena  witnesses ; 
to  administer  oaths  ;  to  hold  secret  sessions ;  and  is 
armed  with  the  power  of  the  Government  to  enforce 
its  mandates,  while  the  public  treasury  is  at  its  dis 
posal  for  such  expenditures  as  in  its  discretion  are 
deemed  necessary.  In  an  ordinary  case,  where  the 
controversy  is  not  of  a  political  nature,  there  seems  to 
be  no  good  reason  why  a  committee  of  the  House  of 
Representatives,  free  from  bias  or  prejudice,  with  none 
of  its  members  the  self-proclaimed  "friend"  of  either 
party  to  the  controversy  to  be  investigated,  should  not 
do  justice  to  all  concerned. 

But  where  a  political  advantage  is  to  be  achieved 
as,  for  instance,  in  a  contested  election  case,  the  aver 
age  Congressman's  impartiality  cannot  wholly  resist 
party  fealty,  and  the  contestant  is  apt  to  be  admitted 
or  rejected  according  to  his  political  opinions.  This 
fact  exhibits  the  value  of  a  report  of  a  House  Com 
mittee  where  the  members  of  the  committee  are  inter 
ested  personally  or  politically  in  the  result. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


139 


In  the  Fifty-first  Congress  where  a  committee  was 
appointed  to  investigate  charges  preferred  against 
Green  B.  Raum,  and  after  several  days  had  been  con 
sumed,  it  was  discovered  that  one  of  the  members  of 
the  committee  was  personally  and  pecuniarily  inter 
ested  in  the  matter  being  investigated.  When  exposure 
came,  the  member  retired  from  the  committee. 

Almost  contemporaneous  with  the  Conkling-Fry 
Committee  of  Investigation  was  another  Committee  of 
the  House,  which  investigated  the  case  of  Patrick 
Wood,  who  had  assaulted  a  Member  of  Congress  in 
the  city  of  Norfolk,  Va.,  over  two  hundred  miles  dis 
tant  from  the  Capitol.  The  majority  of  the  House 
and  of  the  Committee,  being  in  political  accord  with 
the  "Member,"  the  Committee  judicially  held  that  the 
assault  of  the  Member  in  Norfolk  was  a  breach  of  the 
privileges  of  the  House  sitting  in  Washington,  and 
Wood  was  arrested  by  the  Sergeant-at-arms,  brought 
to  Washington,  and  imprisoned  for  a  period  of  ninety 
days  in  the  common  jail  of  the  District  of  Columbia. 

In  1876  an  Investigating  Committee  of  the  House 
judicially  decided  that  Hallet  Kilbourn,  a  citizen  of 
Washington,  was  guilty  of  a  breach  of  privilege  and 
in  contempt  of  the  Committee  and  the  House,  for  re 
fusing  to  give  to  the  Committee  information  in  ref 
erence  to  his  private  business,  and,  by  order  of  the 
House,  he  was  imprisoned  in  the  jail  of  the  District  of 
Columbia  for  a  period  of  forty-five  days,  when  he  was 
discharged  on  habeas  corpims,  and  in  a  suit  against  the 
Sergeant-at-arms  of  the  House,  he  recovered  judgment 
for  $100,000  for  false  imprisonment,  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  deciding  that  the  Commit- 


140  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

tee  and  the  House  had  no  authority  to  make  the  arrest, 
or  inflict  any  penalty  whatever. 

The  investigation  in  the  Kilbourn  case  was  politi 
cal,  the  object  being  apparently  to  bring  discredit  on 
certain  officials  of  the  Administration. 

A  large  majority  of  the  House  of  Representatives 
which  ordered  the  Conkling  Fry  investigation  was  in 
political  accord  with  Mr.  Conkling,  and  was  distin 
guished  for  party  zeal  and  its  desire  to  perpetuate 
political  supremacy.  The  leader  of  the  Republican 
side  was  Thaddeus  Stevens,  of  Pennsylvania. 

Mr.  Conkling,  a  distinguished  Member  of  the 
House,  and  Mr.  Shellabarger,  his  political  and  personal 
friend,  and  a  few  others  were  eminent  in  leadership. 
When  therefore  a  Committee  was  appointed  to  inves 
tigate  this  aifair  it  was  not  remarkable  that  Mr.  Conk- 
ling's  "  friend,"  Mr.  Shellabarger,  was  appointed  its 
Chairman,  although  he  wras  not  the  mover  of  the  reso 
lution  raising  the  Committee,  and  his  selection  for  the 
place  was  not  according  to  the  usages  of  the  House. 

With  a  Committee  composed  as  this  was  with 
Mr.  Conkling's  personal  friend  its  Chairman,  it  is  ap 
parent  that  he  was  well  on  the  way  towards  a  com 
plete  vindication. 

PRIVILEGES. 

With  the  foregoing  history  of  the  case  in  mind, 
let  us  consider  the  facts  and  principles  of  "  privileges  " 
which  apply  to  it. 

The  constitution  says  that  "for  any  speech  or  de 
bate  in  either  House  "  a  member  "  shall  not  be  ques 
tioned  in  any  other  place."  Mr.  Blaine,  a  member  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  "  questioned "  Mr. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  141 

Conkling  on  the  floor  of  the  House  for  a  speech  made 
there,  and  in  doing  so  used  information  furnished  by 
me  ;  but  neither  I  nor  any  one  else,  so  far  as  I  know, 
ever  "  questioned  "  Mr.  Conkling  "  in  any  other  place." 

The  letter  was  read  at  the  Clerk's  desk.  The 
consent  of  the  House  furnished  the  opportunity  for 
Mr.  Elaine  by  using  my  letter  to  refute  the  calumnies 
with  which  Mr.  Conkling  had  assailed  me  before  the 
body  in  which  these  calumnies  were  uttered,  and  just 
when  or  how  the  breach  of  privilege  by  me  occurred 
is  not  explained  by  the  Committee,  for  there  is  no  law 
that  prohibits  a  citizen  who  has  been  accused  in  the 
House  from  being  defended  in  the  House,  the  consent 
of  the  House  being  first  obtained.  The  prohibition  is 
against  questioning  the  member  in  another  place,  for 
words  spoken  in  debate. 

An  assumed  intention  on  my  part  to  have  the 
letter  read  in  the  House  was  brought  into  the  case. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  I  had  such  intention  and 
certainly  I  had  no  power  to  enforce  the  reading.  But 
aside  from  these  facts,  is  any  human  tribunal  compe 
tent  to  judge  and  punish  intentions  alone  ?  At  the 
instance  of  Mr.  Blaine,  my  letter  to  him  was  read  at 
the  C]erk's  desk,  and  no  member  disapproved,  indeed 
Mr.  Conkling  urged  that  the  reading  be  completed. 
Yet  I  was  condemned  months  afterwards  for  breach 
of  privilege,  and  for  intending  to  get  the  hearing  which 
the  House  freely  granted  without  application  or  solici 
tation  from  me. 

If  the  privilege  of  the  House  was  assailed,  it  was 
assailed  by  its  own  consent.  If  the  House  had  not 
consented  to  the  reading  of  the  letter,  then  the  respon- 


142  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-PBY    CONTROVERSY. 

sibility  would  have  rested  on  the  member  introducing 
it,  and  under  no  aspect  of  the  transaction  can  it  fairly 
be  charged  to  my  account. 

It  is  stated  by  the  Committee  in  its  report  that 
.  .  .  "  indignities  offered  to  the  character  or  pro 
ceeding  of  the  National  Legislature  by  libellous  as 
saults  have  been  resented  and  punished  both  in  Eng 
land  and  in  the  United  States  as  a  breach  of  privi 
lege  ;  and  such  assaults  upon  the  official  character  of 
members  have  been  held  punishable  as  indignities 
committed  against  the  House  itself." 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  Committee  over 
looked  the  fact  that  the  so-called  charges  of  my  letter 
against  Mr.  Conkling  are  not  assaults  upon  his  offi 
cial  character  as  a  Member  of  Congress  ;  but  upon  his 
official  character  as  a  Special  Judge  Advocate,  a  mat 
ter  with  which  the  House  was  in  no  way  concerned. 

It  is  true,  as  stated  in  the  report  of  the  Commit 
tee  (page  34)  above  quoted,  that  "breaches  of  privilege 
have  been  resented  and  punished  both  in  England  and 
in  the  United  States."  In  England  the  instances  are 
numerous,  but  in  this  country  they  are  rare.  The  fol 
lowing  are  some  of  the  English  precedents  that  sus 
tain  the  statement  of  the  Committee. 

In  1810  Sir  Francis  Burdett  having  published  a 
letter  reflecting  on  the  House  of  Commons,  his  house 
was  broken  into  by  the  Sergeant-at-arms,  and  he  was 
committed  to  the  Tower.  [14  East,  293.] 

Floydds  case.  FJoyde,  for  a  slight  offense,  if  it 
were  one,  against  King  James  I.,  in  speaking  of  his 
daughter  and  son-in-law,  was  adjudged  by  the  House 
of  Commons  to  be  in  contempt,  his  fortune  was  con- 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  143 

fiscated,  his  body  tortured,  his  name  degraded,  and 
himself  imprisoned  for  life.  [2  How.  State  Tr. 
1143.] 

Richard  Reynolds  and  Robert  Wright,  for  arrest 
ing  a  servant  of  the  Earl  of  Oxford,  were  ordered  to 
be  set  on  horseback  near  Westminster  Hall,  neither 
of  them  with  cloak  or  hat,  but  to  have  on  their 
breasts  and  backs  papers  expressing  their  fault.,  viz.: 
"  For  contemptuous  breach  of  the  privileges  of  Parlia 
ment,  aggravated  by  contemptuous  speeches,"  and  so 
to  pass  to  the  Fleet,  where  they  are  to  be  left  pris 
oners. 

In  Murray^  case.  The  Commons  confined  him 
a  close  prisoner  for  a  breach  of  privilege  of  the  House. 
He  was  denied  pen  and  paper,  or  any  communication 
with  his  friends.  His  health  was  suffering,  but  a 
physician  was  not  allowed  to  visit  him  except  upon 
the  order  of  the  House.  [I.  Wilson,  299.] 

George  Gardner,  "For  scandalizing  the  justice 
of  the  House,  and  for  unjustly  slandering  the  Lord 
Keeper,"  was  ordered  to  stand  in  the  pillory  at  West 
minster,  with  a  paper  on  his  head  declaring  his  offense, 
and  to  ride  backward  with  the  same  paper  to  the 
Cross  in  Cheapside,  and  so  to  stand  in  the  pillory 
there,  and  so  to  ride  back  to  the  Fleet  prison. 

In  the  case  of  Jay  vs.  Topham.  The  House  of 
Commons  ordered  the  defendant,  their  Sergeant-at- 
arms,  to  arrest  and  imprison  the  plaintiff  for  having 
dared  to  exercise  the  common  right  of  all  Englishmen, 
of  presenting  a  petition  to  the  King,  on  the  state  of 
public  affairs,  when  no  Parliament  existed.  For  this 
imprisonment  an  action  was  brought. 


144  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

The  plea  of  justification  under  the  warrant  of  the 
Speaker  was  overruled  by  the  Court,  for  the  law,  says 
Lord  Denman,  was  clear,  and  Lord  Ellenborough 
points  this  out  in  a  most  forcible  manner.  [14  East, 
109.] 

Yet  for  this  righteous  judgment  Chief  Justice 
Pemberton  and  one  of  his  brethren  were  summoned 
before  the  House,  where  they  vindicated  their  conduct 
by  unanswerable  reasoning,  but  were,  notwithstanding, 
committed  to  the  prison  of  Newgate  for  the  remainder 
of  the  session. 

In  BeWs  case,  where  the  messenger  of  the  House 
of  Lords  had  received  an  umbrella  from  the  owner  at 
the  door  of  the  House,  and  had  not  returned  it,  and 
the  owner  sued  for  the  value,  and  recovered,  the  House 
summoned  both  the  owner  and  the  Court  officer  before 
them.  The  plaintiff  was  discharged  on  his  submis 
sion,  and  the  officers,  upon  their  declaring  their  igno 
rance  of  the  nature  of  the  summons.  [59  Lord's  Jour 
nal  199.] 

It  was  adjudged  a  contempt  of  the  House  of 
Lords  to  kill  Lord  Galway's  rabbits ;  also  to  fish  in 
Admiral  Griffin's  pool.  [See  Lord  Denman's  Opinion 
in  Stockdale  vs.  Hansard,  9  Adolphus  and  Ellis 
109.] 

Having  recited  these  English  precedents  relied 
upon  by  the  Committee,  I  next  refer  to  the  American 
cases : 

Hallett  Kilbourn,  a  citizen  of  the  District  of 
Columbia,  was  arrested  by  order  of  the  House,  by  its 
Sergeant-at-arms,  and  imprisoned  for  forty-five  days  in 
the  District  jail  for  a  breach  of  the  privileges  of  the 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  145 

House  of  Representatives,  in  refusing  to  disclose  his 
private  business  to  an  investigating  Committee. 

In  an  action  for  false  imprisonment  he  recovered 
a  verdict  of  one  hundred  thousand  dollars'  damages 
against  the  Sergeant-at-arms,  under  a  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.  [13  Otto, 
168.] 

Patrick  Woods,  of  Norfolk,  Va.,  as  heretofore 
stated,  was  adjudged  guilty  of  a  breach  of  the  privi 
leges  of  the  House  of  Representatives  for  engaging  in 
a  personal  encounter  with  a  Member  of  Congress  in 
the  streets  of  Norfolk,  more  than  two  hundred  miles 
distant  from  the  Capitol. 

He  was  arrested  by  the  Sergeant-at-arms,  and  by 
order  of  the  House  imprisoned  in  the  jail  of  the  Dis 
trict  of  Columbia  for  a  period  of  three  months. 

But  there  is  no  instance  on  record,  in  this  country, 
where  the  reading  of  a  letter  by  a  member  or  the  Clerk 
of  the  House  has  been  adjudged  by  the  House  a 
breach  of  privilege  by  the  writer  of  the  letter,  or  by 
the  member  introducing  it. 

The  Committee   states  in  its  report   (page  34)  : 

"Your  Committee  cUeru  it  proper  most  earnestly  to  protest  against 
the  practice  which  has  obtnined  to  some  extent  of  causing  letters  from 
persons  not  members  of  the  House  to  be  read  as  part  of  a  personal 
explanation,  in  which  the  motives  of  members  are  criticised,  their 
conduct  censured,  and  they  are  called  to  answer  for  words  spoken  in 
debate.'' 

It  would  seem  from  this  that  Mr.  Elaine,  in  caus 
ing  my  letter  to  be  read  in  the  House,  was  only  con 
forming  to  the  practice  which  had  to  some  extent 
obtained  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  but  in  no 


146 


CONKLING    AND    ELAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


instance  adjudged  or  regarded  as  a  breach  of  privi 
lege. 

It  is  stated  in  the  Report  of  the  Committee,  that 
my  letter  was  a  libel  on  the  official  and  personal  char 
acter  of  Mr.  Conkling,  and  that 

"such  libellous  assaults  have  been  resented  and  punished  both  in  Eng 
land  and  in  the  United  States  as  breaches  of  privilege;  and  such 
assaults  upon  the  official  character  of  members  have  been  punishable 
as  indignities  committed  against  the  House  itself." 

And  it  is  added: 

1 '  Your  Committee  have  refrained  from  making  any  recommenda 
tion  as  to  the  proceedings  by  the  House  against  General  Fry  for  his 
breach  of  privilege.  The  reasons  for  this  are,  in  part,  to  be  found  in 
the  circumstances  connected  with  the  introduction  of  General  Fry's 
letter  into  the  House  by  one  of  its  members. ' ' 

The  Committee  refrain  from  stating  the  nature  or 
degree  of  the  punishment  which  ought  to  be  inflicted 
in  this  instance,  but  measuring  the  enormity  of  the 
offense  by  its  vehement  denunciation  by  the  Commit 
tee,  it  would  surely  be  an  instructive  lesson  had  they 
done  so. 

It  may  be  that  the  Committee  rested  on  the  Eng 
lish  precedents  to  which  the  Chairman  so  eloquently 
referred,  when  parliamentary  privileges  bore  undis 
puted  sway  ;  for  we  are  told  by  the  Committee  that 
"  such  assaults,"  that  is  such  assaults  as  my  letter, 
"  have  been  punished  in  England  as  breaches  of  priv 
ilege,"  and  the  history  of  England  and  the  law  reports 
tell  us  how  they  were  punished. 

The  statement  of  the  Committee  that  "such  as 
saults  have  been  resented  and  punished  in  the  United 
States  as  breaches  of  privilege  "  is  not  sustained  by 
history. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  147 

POWERS  DELEGATED  TO  THE  HOUSE. 

The  powers  expressly  granted  to  the  House  of 
Representatives  are  : 

1st.     To  judge  of  the  election,  returns,   and  qualifications  of  its 

members. 
2d.   To  compel  the  attendance  of  absent  members  in  such  manner 

and  under  such  penalties  as  it  may  prescribe. 
3d.    To  determine  the  rules  of  its  proceedings. 
4th.    To  punish  its  members  for  disorderly  behavior, 
oth.     With  the  concurrence  of  two-thirds,  to  expel  a  member. 
6th.     The  House  shall  have  the  sole  power  of  impeachment. 

PRIVILEGES  OF  MEMBERS  OF  THE  HOUSE. 

1st.  They  shall  in  all  cases,  except  treason,  felony,  and  breach 
of  the  peace,  be  privileged  from  arrest  during  their  at 
tendance  at  the  session  of  the  House,  and  in  going  to  and 
returning  from  the  same. 

2d.  For  any  speech  or  debate  in  the  House  they  shall  not  be 
questioned  in  any  other  place. 

The  enumerated  powers  delegated  to  the  House 
of  Representatives  all  refer  expressly  to  its  control 
over  its  own  members,  except  in  the  case  of  impeach 
ment.  There  is  no  other  grant  of  judicial  power. 

The  authority  "  to  determine  the  rules  of  its  pro 
ceedings  "  relates  to  "  proceedings  "  legally  instituted. 
The  House  cannot  extend  its  power  beyond  its  con 
stitutional  limits  by  any  rule,  or  rules,  which  it  may 
"  determine." 

The  distinction  between  the  powers  granted  to 
the  House  and  the  privileges  conferred  upon  its  mem 
bers  is  clearly  defined. 

The  House  of  Representatives  certainly  acquires 
no  additional  judicial  power  from  the  fact  that  its  in 
dividual  members  are  exempt  from  civil  process,  or 
from  liability  to  respond  in  damages  for  slander  uttered 
on  the  floor  of  the  House.  Section  8,  Art.  L,  of  the 


148 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY     CONTROVERSY. 


Constitution,  enumerates  the  powers  delegated  to  Con 
gress,  and  then  authorizes  Congress,  not  the  House 
separately,  "  to  make  all  laws  which  shall  be  necessary 
and  proper  for  carrying  into  execution  the  foregoing 
powers,  and  all  other  powers,  vested  by  this  Constitu 
tion  in  the  government  of  the  United  States,  or  in  any 
department  or  officer  thereof" 

INCIDENTAL  POWERS. 

The  express  powers  delegated  to  the  House,  and 
which  I  have  enumerated,  are  accompanied  with  an 
implied  grant  of  whatever  is  essential  to  make  them 
effectual,  not  to  enlarge  their  scope  or  to  change  their 
nature  or  character. 

The  incidental  powers  relate  to  the  thing  granted, 
so  that  the  specific  object  may  be  accomplished. 

The  power  of  the  House  to  punish  is  restricted 
by  express  grant  to  the  punishment  of  its  members; 
the  power  to  punish  a  private  citizen  is  not  incidental 
to  the  power  to  punish  a  member  of  the  House. 

In  the  convention  a  proposition  was  made  and 
referred  to  the  select  committee  appointed  to  draft 
the  Constitution  giving  authority  to  punish  for  con 
tempt.  The  committee  made  no  report  on  the  sub 
ject.  [Journal  of  Convention,  Aug.,  pp.  263,  264.] 

CONSTITUTIONAL    SAFEGUARDS. 

When  the  Constitution  was  framed,  and  for  many 
years  previous,  it  was  the  custom  of  the  House  of 
Commons  in  England  to  punish  private  persons  ad 
judged  to  be  in  contempt  of  its  authority,  with  igno 
minious  penalties,  such  as  fine,  imprisonment,  branding 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  149 

on  the  cheek,  whipping  at  the  cart's  tail,  or  whatever 
the  caprice  or  passion  of  the  moment  dictated. 

Is  it  to  be  presumed  that  the  framers  of  the  Con 
stitution  intended  to  invest  like  power  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  ?  and,  if  so,  why  confer  the  power 
to  inflict  punishment  upon  its  members  and  limit  it  to 
expulsion  from  the  House,  when  it  was  customary  for 
the  House  of  Commons,  before  and  afterwards,  not 
only  to  expel,  but  to  inflict  bodily  punishment  upon 
its  members  adjudged  in  contempt  ? 

Was  it  intended  that  the  unrestricted  power  of 
punishing  private  citizens  at  discretion,  for  real  or 
supposed  contempt  of  its  authority,  should  be  silently 
vested  in  the  House,  when  it  required  an  express 
grant  to  authorize  the  punishment  of  its  members  for 
disorderly  conduct  ? 

On  the  other  hand,  the  framers  of  the  Constitu 
tion  took  abundant  pains  to  guard  the  liberty  of  the 
citizen,  and  protect  him  in  the  free  enjoyment  of  life 
and  property. 

It  cannot  be  presumed  that  they  intended  that, 
without  passing  a  law,  a  man  may  be  punished  for 
doing  what  he  had  no  means  of  knowing  was  an 
offense;  or  that,  without  indictment,  information,  or 
affidavit,  charging  an  offense,  he  could  be  arrested, 
tried,  convicted,  and  sentenced  without  the  interven 
tion  of  a  jury,  or  any  of  the  safeguards  which  protect 
personal  rights  in  civilized  communities. 

It  is  a  monstrous  doctrine  that  a  man  may  be  ex 
posed  to  a  punishment  of  which  he  never  could  have 
heard  until  his  sentence  was  pronounced. 

In  a  country  where  the  legislature  was  supreme, 


150  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

where  the  law-maker  could  alter  or  abolish  the  consti 
tution,  or  change  the  form  of  government  at  will ; 
where  the  parliament  was  omnipotent,  and  where  the 
exclusive  power  of  either  of  its  branches  to  punish 
breaches  of  privilege  by  infamous  punishment  was 
not  denied,  the  right  to  exercise  the  power  rested  upon 
premises  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  theory  of  our 
government. 

There  is  no  provision  of  the  Constitution  that 
expressly  or  incidentally  empowers  the  House  to  pun 
ish  persons  other  than  its  own  members.  There  is  no 
act  of  Congress  that  authorizes  it. 

The  power,  therefore,  must  be  looked  for  out 
side  of  the  Constitution  and  acts  of  Congress,  which 
are  declared  to  be  the  "supreme  law  of  the  land." 

The  House  alone  has  no  authority  to  make  a  law. 
It  may  establish  rules  for  its  own  government,  but 
it  has  made  no  rule  prescribing  a  penalty  for  contempt 
or  breach  of  privilege. 

The  House  having  no  power  to  make  a  law,  and 
there  being  no  law  of  Congress  prescribing  a  penalty 
for  contempt  of  that  body,  from  what  source  is  the 
power  derived  under  which  the  House  creates  the 
offense,  and  determines  the  penalty  at  will  ? 

As  the  offense  is  not  defined,  and  no  penalty  is 
fixed  beforehand,  the  House  assumes  to  create  an 
offense  and  prescribe  the  penalty  for  its  violation. 

Such  an  act  is  ex  post  facto,  for  it  has  no  existence 
until  after  the  offense  is  committed. 

It  is  void  as  law,  for  the  reason  that  neither 
House  can  make  a  law  in  its  individual  capacity. 

No  law  being  in   existence  when   the  act  com- 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  151 

plained  of  was  committed,  the  act  cannot  be  in  viola 
tion  of  law. 

There  being  no  law  defining  "  breach  of  privi 
lege,"  it  follows  that  a  citizen  punished  for  contempt 
would  obviously  be  "  punished  without  due  process  of 
law." 

Congress  having  enacted  no  law  declaring  what 
is  or  is  not  a  contempt  of  the  authority  of  the  House, 
or  a  breach  of  its  privileges,  the  citizen  cannot  know 
what  is  or  is  not  a  contempt  of  that  body. 

In  the  Kilbourn  case  the  plaintiff  denied  the 
right  of  the  House  to  inquire  into  his  private  busi 
ness,  or  to  inspect  his  private  papers,  and  was  impris 
oned  in  the  common  jail  by  order  of  the  House. 

If  I  refuse  to  take  off  my  hat  to  a  member  of  the 
House  on  the  public  street,  is  it  a  contempt  for  which 
I  may  be  imprisoned  ?  Happily,  the  Supreme  Court 
in  a  recent  case  said  that  "  every  man  should  be  able  to 
know  with  certainty  when  he  is  committing  a  crime." 
[United  States  vs.  Keese  et.  al.,  2  Otto,  220.] 

The  right  of  the  citizen  to  be  protected  from 
usurpation  of  power  was  not  overlooked  by  the  fram- 
ers  of  the  Constitution.  I  have  already  adverted  to 
the  fact  that  the  fathers  were  familiar  with  the  abuses 
and  despotic  invasion  of  private  rights  by  the  House 
of  Commons,  contemporaneous  with,  and  prior  to,  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution. 

They  had  not  forgotten  the  infamous  punishments, 
the  imprisonments,  the  mutilations  and  maimings  of 
loyal  and  honest  Englishmen  by  the  House  of  Com 
mons  for  alleged  contempts  and  breaches  of  privilege. 

They  remembered  that  that  House  had  declared 


152  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

"  that  whatsoever  is  enacted  and  declared  for  law  by 
the  Commons  in  Parliament  assembled  hath  the  force 
of  law,  and  all  the  people  of  this  nation  are  concluded 
thereby,  although  the  consent  and  concurrence  of  the 
King  or  House  of  Peers  be  not  had  thereunto."  [Bl. 
Com.  160.] 

They  constructed  a  government  of  delegated  pow 
ers,  by  which  the  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United 
States  by  the  Constitution  are  reserved  to  the  States 
respectively,  or  to  the  people. 

Instead  of  recognizing  the  right  of  a  legislative 
body  to  punish  a  citizen,  they  provided  such  abundant 
safeguards  that  "  he  who  walks  in  honesty,  walks 
without  fear." 

So  jealous  of  the  rights  and  liberties  of  the  citizen 
were  they  that  the  right  of  inflicting  punishment  by 
the  House  was  restricted  to  the  punishment  of  its  own 
members  for  disorderly  conduct,  and  that  not  to  ex 
tend  beyond  expulsion  ;  and  only  then  by  a  vote  of 
two-thirds  of  the  whole  House. 

The  power  to  punish  does  not  belong  inherently 
to  any  legislative  body  or  tribunal.  The  right  of 
self-defense  and  self-preservation  is  a  natural  right, 
and  is  inherent  in  legislative  bodies  as  well  as  in 
individuals. 

The  power  to  punish  is  a  delegated  power.  It  is 
surrendered  to  the  government  by  the  whole  people, 
each  individual  consenting  to  be  deprived  of  a  part  of 
his  natural  rights  whenever  he  has  committed  a 
wrongful  act  against  the  people,  his  fellow  members 
to  this  compact. 

"  Political,  therefore,  or  civil  liberty,  which  is  that 


CONKLING    AND    ELAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  153 

of  members  of  society,  is  no  other  than  natural  liberty 
so  far  restrained  by  human  laws  [and  no  farther]  as 
is  necessary  and  expedient  for  the  general  advantage 
of  the  public."  [Bl.  Com.  125.] 

The  power  to  punish  must  be  derived  from  the 
whole  body  of  the  people  in  which  alone  it  originally 
resided,  and  from  which  it  can  only  be  acquired  by 
organic,  positive  law. 

The  right  of  self-defense  or  self-preservation  is 
not  to  be  denied.  The  House  may  preserve  order  and 
decorum,  arrest,  remove,  or  restrain  intruders,  or  dis 
turbers  of  its  deliberations.  It  may  protect  its  rights 
as  an  individual  protects  his.  It  may  resist  force  by 
force  in  self-defense,  but  when  the  disturbance  is 
ended  and  order  restored,  that  is  the  end  of  the  matter 
unless  some  law  has  been  violated,  in  which  event  the 
courts  will  intervene  and  justice  will  be  done. 

I  have  already  stated  that  the  House  has  not 
adopted  a  rule  prescribing  the  penalty  for  contempt 
of  its  authority  or  breaches  of  its  privilege ;  so  that, 
conceding  the  power  to  punish,  the  House  has  failed 
to  define  or  declare  what  constitutes  the  offense,  or  the 
nature  or  the  extent  of  the  penalty. 

In  a  free  government  like  this,  where  the  rights 
and  liberties  of  the  people  are  protected  by  law, 
it  is  difficult  to  understand  how  it  can  happen  that 
the  most  sacred  rights  may  be  disregarded  by  the 
servants  of  the  people,  upon  the  pretext  that  some 
thing  which  they  call  privilege  has  been  assailed, 
when  no  man  can  possibly  know  what  that  privilege 
is.  So  far  as  it  has  been  revealed,  it  is  a  shadowy  and 
undefined  spirit  of  pride  known  to  Congressmen  only. 


154  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

Yet  in  the  face  of  all  this,  the  Chairman  of  the 
Committee,  in  closing  the  debate  on  the  adoption  of  his 
report  in  behalf  of  his  "friend,"  Mr.  Conkling,  with 
zeal  and  earnestness,  speaking  of  my  letter  said  : 

' '  I  repeat  what  has  been  said  in  the  report,  that  a  more  careful 
and  more  malicious  and  wanton  violation  of  the  privilege  of  the  House 
and  of  its  members  has  not  been  brought  to  the  notice  of  any  member 
of  the  Committee."  Cong.  Globe,  July  19,  1866,  page  5945.  [Ap 
pendix  D.] 

Such  was  the  utterance  of  the  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  appointed  to  examine  judicially  the  matter 
at  issue,  and  acting  under  an  oath  of  office  as  Con 
gressman  which  required  him  to  do  exact  justice  to 
the  parties  in  interest. 

These  are  the  closing  words  of  the  Chief  Justice 
of  the  tribunal  that  tried  the  cause : 

' '  I  am  unwilling  to  consume  the  time  of  the  House,  but  I  am  un 
willing  to  sit  down  without  saying  the  House  should  do  this  justice  to 
my  friend  from  New  York  [Mr.  Conkling]," 

that  is  to  say,  adopt  the  Committee's  report  eulogizing 
Mr.  Conkling  for  the  faithful  manner  in  which  he  had 
performed  the  duties  of  Special  Judge  Advocate  for 
the  Western  Division  of  New  York  ;  which  duties,  as 
we  have  seen,  consisted  in  prosecuting  a  solitary  case 
at  Elmira,  and  for  which  the  government  paid  him 
$3000. 

The  chairman's  way  of  putting  it  is,  that  his 
"  friend,  Mr.  Conkling,  was  not  only  innocent,  but 
eminently  patriotic,  and  valuable  step  by  step  to  his 
government  at  a  time  of  imminent  peril."  [Cong.  Globe 

ib.] 

Who,  or  what  it  was  that  was  in  peril  he  does 
not  disclose,  nor  does  it  appear  how  the  peril  was 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  155 

averted  by  the  trial  of  Major  Haddock  by  Court- 
martial,  for  Mr.  Conkling's  military  services  were 
rendered  after  the  war  was  over  and  the  Confederacy 
had  ceased  to  exist. 


CONCLUSION. 

I  look  for  no  reparation,  but  possibly  this  review 
of  the  wrong  done  me  may  hereafter  save  the  House 
from  voting  censure  in  ignorance  of  the  testimony, 
and  with  no  more  knowledge  of  the  subject  than  may 
be  derived  from  the  report  of  an  investigating  com 
mittee,  presented  and  advocated  by  the  u friend"  and 
congressional  associate  of  one  of  the  contestants. 
Indeed,  though  the  House  might  be  pleased  to  take 
action  on  its  own  account,  I  am  not  certain  that  any 
damage  has  been  done  to  me.  My  professional  career 
has  been  one  of  unbroken  progress.  The  government 
has  treated  me  with  unwavering  consideration  and 
liberality ;  and  I  am  in  the  enjoyment  of  ample 
rewards  for  my  services  and  merits. 

General  Jackson,  while  President  of  the  United 
States,  addressed  a  communication  to  the  Senate  repel 
ling  the  condemnation  of  him  by  that  exalted  body  for 
official  action  of  his  affecting  the  United  States  Bank ; 
and  the  Senate  voted  his  communication  to  be  a  breach 
of  privilege. 

I,  while  chief  of  a  military  bureau,  addressed  a 
communication,  not  to  the  House,  but  to  a  member  of 
it,  not  touching  any  action  of  the  House,  but  support 
ing  a  member  in  repelling  public  condemnation  of  my 
official  action,  by  another  member;  and  the  House 
voted  my  communication  to  be  a  breach  of  privilege. 
Both  cases  are  without  precedent.  The  Senate  long 
ago  expunged  its  censure  from  the  records. 

156 


APPENDIX   A. 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  Tuesday,  April  24, 
1866.  The  House  met  at  twelve  o'clock,  M.  Prayer 
by  Rev.  Henry  W.  Bellows.  The  journal  of  yesterday 
was  read  and  approved.  The  House  resumed  the 
consideration  of  the  bill  (H.  R  ,  No.  361)  entitled 
"An  act  to  reorganize  and  establish  the  Army  of  the 
United  States."  The  twentieth  section  was  then  read 
as  follows : 

Sec.  20.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  the  Provost  Marshal's 
Bureau  hereafter  consist  of  a  provost  marshal  general,  with  the  rank, 
pay,  and  emoluments  of  a  brigadier  general ;  and  one  assistant  provost 
marshal  general,  with  the  rank,  pay,  and  emoluments  of  a  colonel  of 
cavalry ;  and  all  matters  relating  to  the  recruitment  of  the  Army  and 
the  arrest  of  deserters  shall  be  placed  under  the  direction  and  control  of 
this  bureau,  under  such  regulations  as  the  Secretary  of  War  may  pre 
scribe. 

Mr.  Conkling.  I  move  to  strike  out  section 
twenty  of  the  bill.  My  objection  to  this  section  is 
that  it  creates  an  unnecessary  office  for  an  undeserving 
public  servant;  it  fastens  as  an  incubus  upon  the 
country  a  hateful  instrument  of  war,  which  deserves 
no  place  in  a  free  government  in  time  of  peace.  I 
have  never  heard  any  very  serious  attempt  to  justify 
by  argument  the  permanent  continuance  of  an  officer 
whose  administration  during  the  war  has  had  in  it  so 
little  to  commend  and  so  much  to.  condemn.  But  I 
have  heard  an  effort  made  to  prove  the  propriety  of 
this  section  by  charging  it  to  the  Lieutenant  General 
of  the  Army,  and  by  saying  that  he  had  found  a  neces 
sity  for  continuing  in  time  of  peace  the  Bureau  of  the 
Provost  Marshal  General.  In  order  that  the  House 

157 


158  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-PRY    CONTROVERSY. 

may  see  how  true  this  allegation  is,  I  send  to  the 
Clerk's  desk  and  ask  to  have  read  copies  of  letters 
which  have  been  furnished  to  me,  the  first  a  letter 
addressed  to  the  Lieutenant  General  by  a  Senator  of 
the  United  States. 

The  Clerk  read  as  follows : 

UNITED  STATES  SENATE  CHAMBER, 

WASHINGTON,  March  17,  1866. 
GENERAL : 

The  House  bill  for  the  organization  of  the  Army  contains  a 
provision  creating  a  permanent  Provost  Marshal's  Bureau,  with  a  brig 
adier  general  at,  its  head;  also  placing  the  recruiting  service  in  its 
charge. 

It  has  been  unofficially  reported  to  me  that  this  was  done  in  conse 
quence  of  a  recommendation  of  yours  to  that  effect. 

I  should  be  pleased  to  know  if  such  is  the  case,  as  I  had  labored 
under  the  impression,  from  conversation  with  officers  of  the  Army,  that 
such  a  step  was  not  a  judicious  one,  and  tended  only  to  increase  the 
number  of  bureaus  and  officers  of  the  Army  with  an  increase  of  expendi 
ture  without  any  corresponding  efficiency  or  benefit. 

If  my  impressions  are  erroneous  I  would  like  to  have  them  cor 
rected. 

I  am  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  W.  NESMITH. 
LIEUTENANT  GENERAL  U.  S.  GRANT,  ETC. 

Mr.    Conkling.     I   now  send  the    answer  of  the 
Lieutenant  General. 

The  Clerk  read  as  follows : 

WASHINGTON,  D.C.,  March  19,  1866. 
DEAR  SIR  : 

Yours  of  the  17th  instant,  stating  that  it  had  been  intimated 
that  I  had  recommended  the  continuance  of  the  Provost  Marshal  Gen 
eral's  department  and  the  transfer  of  the  recruiting  service  to  it,  is 
received. 

Some  months  since  a  paper  was  referred  to  me  showing  the  great 
number  of  desertions  from  the  Army,  and  asking  for  suggestions  to  put 
a  stop  to  them.  To  that  paper  I  suggested  a  number  of  changes  in 
orders  governing  the  recruiting  service,  and  I  recommended  that  the 
whole  matter  be  put  in  charge  of  the  Provost  Marshal  General,  who 
could  devote  more  attention  to  it  than  the  Adjutant  General,  with  all 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY  CONTROVERSY.  159 

his  other  duties,  could.  I  am  opposed,  however,  to  multiplying  bu 
reaus,  and  1  think  there  is  no  necessity  for  a  Provost  Marshal  General. 
In  fact,  if  we  had  to  organize  the  Army  anew,  I  would  not  have  as 
many  bureaus  as  we  now  have.  In  my  opinion,  the  country  would  be 
just  as  well  and  much  more  economically  served  if  the  coast  survey 
ing  duties  were  added  to  the  Engineer  Bureau,  and  the  quartermaster, 
subsistence,  and  pay  departments  were  merged  into  one.  I  would  not 
recommend  a  change  now,  however,  but  would  not  make  any  increase 
of  bureaus. 

Very  truly  yours, 

U.  S.  GRANT, 
Lieutenant  General. 

HON.  J.  W.  NESMITH,  United  States  Senator. 
A  true  copy. 

GEORGE  K.  LEET,  Assistant  Adjutant  General. 

Mr.  Conkling.  The  reasons  which  no  doubt  the 
writer  of  that  letter  has  for  deeming  the  Provost  Mar 
shal  and  his  bureau  an  unnecessary  appendage  to  the 
peace  establishment  of  the  country  appear  at  consid 
erable  length  in  a  communication  which  I  have  here, 
but  which  I  will  not,  unless  it  becomes  necessary,  have 
read.  It  is  a  communication  from  the  acting  head  of 
the  Adjutant  General's  Office.  We  all  know  that 
during  our  history  thus  far  we  have  always  managed 
without  a  bureau  of  this  kind  to  recruit  the  regular 
Army,  and  that  no  need  of  it  has  ever  been  felt  in 
maintaining  the  usual  military  establishment.  The 
Provost  Marshal's  Bureau  was  a  temporary  expedient 
resorted  to  in  an  extreme  emergency  to  bring  volun 
teers  hastily  to  the  field.  Its  mission  is  ended,  and  it 
should  be  buried  out  of  sight.  The  communication  in 
my  hand  shows  that  if  re-established  now  for  the  pur 
pose  of  superintending  recruiting  for  the  regular  Army 
—  and  it  can  be  applied  to  no  other  purpose — the 
expense  of  the  recruiting  service  will  be  largely  in 
creased,  that  no  greater  efficiency  will  be  attained,  that 


160  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

a  necessity  will  be  created  for  duplicating  records,  for 
a  new  supply  of  apartments,  of  clerks,  of  agents ;  in 
short,  of  the  various  arrangements  connected  with 
recruiting,  and  that  absolutely  no  good  result  can  be 
accomplished  by  it. 

I  state  it  thus  strongly  and  briefly,  and  I  will 
cause  the  details  to  be  read  if  the  reading  shall  be 
called  for  hereafter. 

There  is  one  thing — I  knowr  of  but  one — for  this 
bureau  to  do  before  leaving  the  public  presence,  and 
that  is  to  close  its  accounts,  so  as  to  allow  the  Wai- 
Department  and  the  country  to  know  precisely  what 
has  become  of  the  twenty-five  million  and  odd  dollars 
which,  under  the  act  of  March  13,  1862,  went  to  its 
credit.  Sixteen  million  and  some  odd  dollars  have 
been  expended,  and  nine  million  and  odd  dollars  re 
main  as  a  balance  to  the  credit  of  the  fund  ;  and  when 
ever  the  bureau  will  close  its  accounts,  or  will  enable 
them  to  be  closed,  as  they  never  will  be  until  the 
bureau  is  wound  up,  it  will  perform  its  sole  remaining 
function. 

If  the  administration  had  been  ever  so  able,  the 
time  has  come  when  the  whole  system  of  provost  mar 
shals  should  be  numbered  with  the  grievous  memories 
of  a  bloody  and  terrible  epoch. 

But  there  are  yet  other  grounds  of  objection.  I 
protest  against  any  promotion  or  reward  for  the  officer 
whose  interests  are  involved  in  this  section.  He  holds 
already  the  rank  of  lieutenant  colonel  in  the  staff 
department.  Indeed,  by  accident,  if  the  pending  bill 
shall  pass,  he  will  be  elevated  to  a  yet  higher  grade ; 
but  as  he  stands  now,  his  pay  amounts  to  $3,500,  or 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  161 

thereabouts.  I  think  that,  for  the  present,  is  enough 
for  him.  He  has  suffered  nothing  and  lost  nothing  in 
war  that  I  ever  heard  of,  and  I  protest,  in  the  name 
of  my  people  and  in  the  name  of  the  people  of  the 
western  division  of  New  York,  against  perpetuating  a 
power  under  which  they  have  suffered,  beyond  the 
capacity  of  any  man  adequately  to  state  in  the  time 
allotted  to  me. 

Central  and  western  New  York  have  a  right  to 
feel  and  do  feel  deeply  on  this  subject.  My  constit 
uents  remember,  and  other  constituencies  remember, 
wrongs  done  them  too  great  for  forgetfulness  and  almost 
for  belief  by  the  creatures  of  this  bureau  and  by  its 
head. 

We  in  the  western  division  of  New  York  had 
sent  to  rule  over  us  as  assistant  provost  marshal  gen 
eral  an  officer  of  the  Veteran  Reserve  corps  ;  a  man 
who  never  saw  a  battle,  who  never  received  a  scratch 
or  suffered  a  day's  sickness  in  the  military  service ;  a 
man  honored  with  the  especial  personal  intimacy  and 
confidence  of  the  Provost  Marshal  General,  and  who 
in  a  marked  and  ostentatious  degree  reflected  the  will 
and  the  favor  of  his  chief.  He  had  been  for  some 
time  in  the  office  of  the  Provost  Marshal  General  here 
in  Washington,  he  was  his  crony  and  confidant,  and 
sustained  with  him,  as  events  proved,  relations  of 
great  personal  intimacy.  This  spokesman,  so  trusted 
and  so  fortunate,  did  not  come  to  us  alone.  There 
came  at  the  same  time  other  creatures  of  the  head  of  the 
bureau  at  Washington.  The  western  division  swarmed 
with  these  chosen  favorites,  and  they  illustrated  to  the 
full  the  genius  and  the  morale  of  their  mission. 


162 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


By  acts  of  their  own,  and  by  acts  done  by  their 
superior  at  Washington,  they  turned  the  business  of 
recruiting  and  drafting  into  one  carnival  of  corrupt 
disorder,  into  a  paradise  of  coxcombs  and  thieves. 

False  quotas  were  put  upon  us ;  exaggerated  tele 
grams  and  orders  were  sent  to  our  boards  of  super 
visors.  We  were  victimized  by  constant  uncertainty 
and  deception.  In  my  own  district,  under  one  call, 
$438,000  was  wrongfully  wrung  from  an  outraged  and 
groaning  people.  Officers  of  this  bureau  who  sought 
to  stem  the  tide  of  fraud  were  removed  without  warn 
ing,  and  the  whole  machinery  of  the  Government  was 
subject  to  miscreants  and  robbers.  Communities  peti 
tioned  and  remonstrated  in  vain.  The  most  palpable 
wrongs  were  refused  redress.  Men  immeasurably  the 
superiors  of  General  Fry  represented  and  protested, 
but  they  were  spurned  with  magnificent  disdain. 
Never  was  "the  insolence  of  office"  more  offensively 
portrayed  than  it  was  by  this  man  whom  it  is  pro 
posed  to  decorate  and  enrich. 

If  there  was  no  design  at  headquarters  to  do 
wrong,  there  was  a  capacity  to  muddle,  to  befog,  to 
misunderstand  facts,  and  to  misread  and  misstate  fig 
ures  and  simple  results,  which  is  nearly  inconceivable. 

I  was  employed  by  the  Government  to  prosecute 
some  of  the  frauds  to  which  I  have  referred  ;  and  I 
tried  this  assistant  provost  marshal  general,  who  had 
been  justified  in  all  the  outrages  he  committed,  and  in  all 
the  acts  by  which  millions  were  stolen  from  the  peo 
ple  of  New  York;  who  was  justified  by  his  superior 
officer  down  to  the  time  when  the  sentence  was  pub 
lished,  and  afterward,  I  understand.  He  was  accused 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-PRY    CONTROVERSY.  163 

and  convicted  of  the  basest  forms  of  official  atrocity ; 
the  most  monstrous  acts  of  bribery,  oppression  and 
wrong  were  charged  against  him  and  proved  against 
him.  And  although  he  disgorged  some  two  hundred 
thousand  dollars,  I  see  it  stated  in  a  newspaper  that 
the  other  day  he  purchased  in  the  city  of  Philadelphia 
an  establishment  for  which  he  paid  down  $71,000. 
He  was  utterly  poor  when  he  entered  this  bureau  ;  and 
yet,  after  all  he  yielded  up,  and  after  paying  a  fine  of 
$10,000,  it  seems  that  still  he  is  rich. 

And  this  was  not  an  isolated  case ;  far  from  it. 
On  the  contrary,  I  say,  and  I  may  endeavor  on  a 
future  occasion  to  show  in  detail,  that  there  never  has 
been  in  human  history  a  greater  mockery  and  a 
greater  burlesque  upon  honest  administration  than 
the  conduct  of  this  bureau,  taking  the  whole  country 
together.  It  will  turn  out  that  of  the  seven  or  eight 
hundred  thousand  men  for  whom,  not  to  whom, 
because  they  did  not  get  them,  enormous  bounties  were 
paid,  not  to  exceed  three  hundred  thousand,  and  I  be 
lieve  not  two  hundred  thousand,  ever  reached  the  front. 

[Here  the  hammer  fell.]* 

Mr.  Blaine  obtained  the  floor. 

Mr.  Ward.  I  hope  unanimous  consent  will  be 
given  my  colleague  [Mr.  Conkling]  to  proceed. 

Mr.  Hoss.     I  object. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I  am  in  a  very  weakly  condition  of 
health  to  make  the  brief  explanation  due  to  the  Mili 
tary  Committee.  But  I  wish  to  state  why  the  com 
mittee  reported  this  section  of  the  bill  in  regard  to 
which  the  gentleman  from  New  York  shows  so  much 
feeling. 


164  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

I  believe  that  among  the  earliest  acts  of  the  gen 
tleman  from  New  York  at  this  session  of  Congress 
was  the  introduction  of  a  resolution,  which  was 
adopted  by  this  House,  directing  the  War  Department 
to  report  upon  the  expediency  of  abolishing  the  office 
of  Provost  Marshal  General.  In  the  routine  of  busi 
ness  the  answer  of  the  Secretary  of  War  came  to  the 
Military  Committee,  and  among  the  papers  was  a  let 
ter  from  Lieutenant  General  Grant. 

There  was  an  elaborate  paper  also  from  General 
Townsend.  They  were  referred  to  a  sub-committee. 
The  committee,  upon  a  full  review  of  the  papers,  and 
especially  of  the  letter  of  Lieutenant  General  Grant, 
reported  this  section.  The  gentleman  from  New  York 
has  read  a  letter  from  the  Lieutenant  General,  which 
practically  recalls  the  recommendations  of  the  letter 
on  which  the  committee  acted ;  but  I  desire  the  Clerk 
to  read  the  letter  of  Lieutenant  General  Grant,  which 
was  the  authorization,  in  the  judgment  of  the  commit 
tee,  for  inserting  the  section. 

The  Clerk  read  as  follows : 

HEADQUARTERS  ARMY  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 

"  WASHINGTON,  December  14,  1865. 

"  SIR:  — In  reply  to  your  letter  of  the  13th  instant,  in  reference  to 
desertions,  I  would  make  the  following  remarks:  I  do  not  think  the 
present  method  of  recruiting,  as  carried  out,  sufficient  to  fill  up  the 
regular  Army  to  the  force  required,  or  keep  it  full  when  once  filled. 

' '  The  duty  is  an  important  one.  and  demands,  I  think,  the  exclu 
sive  attention  of  an  officer  of  the  War  Department,  aided  by  a  well- 
organized  system  extending  over  the  country.  I  think  the  officer  best 
fitted  for  that  position,  by  his  experience  during  the  present  war,  is 
General  Fry,  and  would  recommend  that  the  whole  subject  of  recruit 
ing  be  put  in  his  hands,  and  all  officers  on  recruiting  duty  be  directed 
to  report  to  him.  He  should  also  have  charge  of  the  apprehension  of 
deserters,  should  be  authorized  to  offer  such  rewards  as  will  secure 


CONKL1NG    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  165 

their  apprehension.  When  caught  they  should  be  tried,  and  the  sen 
tence  rigidly  carried  into  effect;  this  would  soon  stop  the  present 
enormous  amount  of  desertion. 

"  I  would  recommend  that  the  duties  heretofore  performed  by  pro 
vost  marshals  be  hereafter  performed  by  officers  detailed  for  recruiting 
duty.  Very  respectfully, 

"  U.  S.  GRANT, 

< ' Lieutenant  General. 
"  HON.  E.  M.  STANTON,  Secretary  of  War." 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  House  will  observe  that  the 
Committee  on  Military  Affairs  acted  precisely  in  ac 
cordance  with  the  recommendations  of  the  Lieutenant 
General  as  contained  in  the  letter  which  has  just  been 
read.  The  first  point  which  the  Lieutenant  General 
makes  is  that  the  system  of  recruiting  carried  on 
under  the  direction  of  the  Adjutant  General's  Office  has 
not  proved  efficient,  in  his  judgment,  in  filling  the 
Army.  In  the  next  place,  he  suggests  that  some  special 
officer  should  be  detailed  to  superintend  the  business 
of  recruiting,  and  he  names  General  Fry  as  the  proper 
officer.  In  the  next  place,  he  states  that  provost  mar 
shals  throughout  the  country  are  not  needed,  and  that 
their  places  should  be  filled  by  recruiting  officers. 
Provisions  in  accordance  with  all  these  recommen 
dations  are  comprehended  in  the  section  which  the 
gentleman  from  New  York  would  have  stricken  out. 

Mr.  Soutwell.  I  desire  to  state  that  the  facts  up 
to  the  latest  date  do  not  sustain  the  opinion  of  the 
Lieutenant  General.  From  last  October  till  April 
17,  the  Adjutant  General  has  recruited  between  nine 
teen  and  twenty  thousand  men  for  the  regular  Arrny. 

Mr.  Blaine.  We  acted  only  on  the  information 
before  us.  And  when  the  gentleman  from  New  York 
[Mr.  GonMing~\  quotes  the  letter  of  the  Lieutenant 


166  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

General  in  condemnation  of  the  report  made  by  the 
Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  I  merely  wish  the 
privilege  of  showing  that  that  report  was  made  in  ex 
press  conformity,  verbatim  el  literatim,  with  the  recom 
mendations  of  that  officer's  letter,  which  came  officially 
before  the  committee,  and  which  was  not  smuggled  in 
in  the  manner  in  which  the  letter  read  by  the  gentle 
man  from  New  York  conies  before  us.  That  is  not  an 
official  letter;  it  is  an  unofficial  note.  The  letter  just 
read  by  the  Clerk  is  an  official  note,  communicated  to 
this  House  by  the  Secretary  of  War  on  a  regular  call, 
and  referred  by  the  House  to  the  Committee  on  Mili 
tary  Affairs. 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  suppose  that  the  House  of 
Representatives  care  anything  more  than  the  Commit 
tee  on  Military  Affairs  about  the  great  recruiting 
frauds  in  New  York,  or  the  quarrels  of  the  gentleman 
from  New  York  with  General  Fry,  in  which  quarrels 
it  is  generally  understood  the  gentleman  came  out 
second  best  at  the  War  Department.  I  do  not  think 
that  such  questions  ought  to  be  obtruded  here. 

Though  the  gentleman  from  New  York  has  had 
some  difference  with  General  Fry,  yet  I  take  pleasure 
in  saying  that,  as  I  believe,  there  is  not  in  the  Ameri 
can  Army  a  more  honorable  and  high-toned  officer 
than  General  Fry.  That  officer,  I  doubt  not,  is  ready 
to  meet  the  gentleman  from  New  York  or  anybody 
else  in  the  proper  forum.  I  must  say  that  I  do  not 
think  it  is  any  very  creditable  proceeding  for  the  gen 
tleman  from  New  York  here  in  this  place  to  traduce 
General  Fry  as  a  military  officer  when  he  has  no  op 
portunity  to  be  heard,  I  do  not  consider  such  a  pro- 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  1  67 

ceeding  the  highest  specimen  of  chivalry  that  could 
be  exhibited. 

The  gentleman  from  New  York  has  had  his  issues 
with  General  Fry  at  the  War  Department.  They 
have  been  adjudicated  upon  by  the  Secretary  of  War, 
and  I  leave  it  for  the  gentleman  to  say  whether  he 
came  out  first  best.  I  do  not  know  the  particulars  ; 
the  gentleman  can  inform  the  House.  All  I  have  to 
sav  is — and  in  this  I  believe  I  speak  the  sentiment  of 
a  majority  of  the  members  of  this  House — that 
James  B.  Fry  is  a  most  efficient  officer,  a  high-toned 
gentleman,  whose  character  is  without  spot  or  blemish; 
a  gentleman  who  stands  second  to  no  officer  in  the 
American  Army  ;  and  he  is  ready  to  meet  the  gentle 
man  from  New  York  and  all  other  accusers  anywhere 
and  everywhere.  And,  sir,  when  I  hear  the  gentleman 
from  New  York  rehearse  in  this  House,  as  an  impeach 
ment  of  General  Fry,  all  the  details  of  the  recruiting 
frauds  in  New  York,  which  General  Fry  used  his  best 
energies  to  repress  with  iron  hand,  a  sense  of  indigna 
tion  carries  me  beyond  my  personal  strength  and  im 
pels  me  to  denounce  such  a  course  of  proceeding. 

Mr.  Mercur  obtained  the  floor. 

Mr.  Gonkling.  I  ask  the  gentleman  from  Pennsyl 
vania  [Mr.  Mercur']  to  yield  to  me. 

Mr.  Mercur.    I  yield  to  the  gentleman. 

Mr.  Conkling.  Mr.  Speaker,  if  General  Fry  is  re 
duced  to  depending  for  vindication  upon  the  gentle 
man  from  Maine  he  is  to  be  commiserated  certainly. 
If  I  have  fallen  to  the  necessity  of  taking  lessons  from 
that  gentleman  in  the  rules  of  propriety,  or  of  right  or 
wrong,  God  help  me. 


168 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


I  say  to  him  further  that  I  mean  to  take  no  ad 
vantage  such  as  he  attributes  of  the  privileges  of  this 
place  or  of  the  absence  of  General  Fry.  On  the  con 
trary,  I  am  ready  to  avow  what  I  have  here  declared 
anywhere.  I  have  stated  facts  for  which  I  am  willing 
to  be  held  responsible  at  all  times  and  places. 

I  say,  further,  that  the  statement  made  by  the 
gentleman  from  Maine  with  regard  to  myself  person 
ally  and  my  quarrels  with  General  Fry,  and  their  re 
sults,  is  false.  He  says  I  can — 

Mr.  Blaine.  What  does  the  gentleman  mean  to 
say  was  false  ? 

Mr.  Conkling.  I  mean  to  say  that  the  statement 
made  by  the  gentleman  from  Maine  is  false. 

Mr.  Maine.     What  statement  ? 

Mr.  Conkling.  Does  not  the  gentleman  understand 
what  I  mean  ? 

Mr.  Ulainc.  I  call  the  gentleman  to  order.  I  de 
mand  he  shall  state  what  was  false  in  what  I  stated. 
I  have  the  parliamentary  right.  I  demand  the  gentle 
man  shall  state  what  is  false  in  what  I  said. 

The  Speaker  pro  tempore.  The  gentleman  from 
Maine  will  state  his  point  of  order. 

Mr.  Elaine.  I  have  already.  "The  gentleman  has 
denounced  my  statement  as  false.  It  is  my  right  to 
have  him  state  in  what  particular  anything  I  said  or 
what  allegation  I  made  was  false. 

The  Speaker  pro  tempore.  The  Chair  overrules 
the  point  of  order.  The  gentleman  from  New  York 
will  proceed. 

Mr.  Blaine.     One  single  word  more. 

Mr.  Conkling.     I  do  not  yield. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  169 

Mr.  Elaine.  Do  I  understand  the  Speaker  to 
rule,  when  a  member  states  that  another  has  stated 
falsely,  that  is  no  point  of  order  ? 

The  Speaker  pro  tempore.  The  Chair  does  not 
understand  that  to  have  been  the  point  of  order. 

Mi\  Elaine.  Then  I  raise  the  point  of  order  that 
the  gentleman  stated  what  was  unparliamentary  when 
he  said  that  I  stated  what  was  false.  I  have  no  ob 
jection  to  his  going  on  to  state  where  it  is  false. 

The  Speaker  pro  tempore.  The  Chair  understood 
the  gentleman  to  say  it  was  out  of  order  to  pronounce 
a  statement  was  false  without  stating  wherein  it  is 
false.  The  Chair  overruled  that  point  of  order.  If 
the  gentleman  has  another  point  of  order  to  raise  he 
will  please  state  it. 

Mr.  Elaine.  I  raise  the  point  of  order  that  it  was 
not  parliamentary  for  the  gentleman  to  use  those  words. 

The  Speaker  pro  tempore.  The  Chair  sustains  that 
point  of  order. 

Mr.  Elaine.  I  have  no  objection  to  his  stating 
wherein  it  is  false. 

The  Speaker  pro  tempore.  The  Chair  is  of  the  opin 
ion  it  is  not  parliamentary  to  pronounce  what  has  been 
said  by  any  gentleman  in  debate  here  is  false.  It  is 
not  a  point  of  order  well  taken  to  require  him  to  state 
wherein  it  is  false. 

Mr.  Conkling.  Under  the  rules  the  words  ob 
jected  to  should  have  been  taken  clown  at  the  time, 
and  the  point  of  order  comes  now  too  late.  One  who 
makes  such  points  of  order  should  be  more  careful 
how  he  makes  them. 

It  is  not  my  disposition,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  engage 


170  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

in  personal  controversy  upon  this  floor ;  but  when  any 
member  forgets  himself  so  far  as  to  impute  unworthy 
motives  and  resentments  to  me,  when  my  motives  and 
resentments  are  wholly  foreign  to  the  matter  before 
the  House,  he  must  expect  a  rebuff ;  and  when  he  as 
serts  offensively  that  I  have  had  personal  quarrels 
with  a  person  whose  administration  and  public  acts 
are  under  consideration,  and  that  I  have  been  worsted 
in  these  quarrels,  and  that,  too,  before  the  Secretary 
of  War  and  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  when  that 
statement  has  no  foundation  in  fact,  I  think  the  Chair 
and  the  House  will  agree  with  me  that  something  is 
to  be  pardoned  to  the  earnestness  of  the  occasion.  I 
said  what  I  felt  bound  to  say,  speaking  not  only  for 
my  own  constituents,  but  for  other  constituencies  in 
New  York  whose  Representatives  hear  me.  I  could 
not  remain  silent  when  I  know  that  in  my  own  dis 
trict  and  elsewhere  men  who  stood  up  honestly  and 
attempted  to  resist  "  bounty  jumpers "  and  thieves 
were  stricken  down  and  trodden  under  foot  by  Gen 
eral  Fry.  I  affirm  that  the  only  way  to  acquit  him  of 
venality  is  to  convict  him  of  the  most  incredible  in- 
competency.  I  am  responsible  for  that,  sir,  everywhere. 
I  have  had  no  such  personal  quarrel  with  General 
Fry,  however,  as  has  been  asserted.  I  never  chanced 
to  see  him  but  once,  unless  I  have  forgotten  it,  and 
when  the  gentleman  rises  here  and  makes  a  charge  of 
that  kind,  with  the  insinuation  by  which  he  accom 
panies  it,  his  conduct  calls  for  some  plainness  of 
speech.  And  so,  using  parliamentary  language,  I  reit 
erate  that  the  statement  which  was  made  is  errone 
ous  and  destitute  of  that  which  it  should  possess  in 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  171 

order  to  render  it  admissible  in  debate.  I  believe  that 
is  parliamentary,  even  if  the  other  form  was  not. 

Now,  sir,  I  want  to  say  a  word  about  this  letter. 

Mr.  Mercur.  Mr.  Speaker- 
Mr.  Conkling.  I  beg  pardon.  I  thought  the 
gentleman  yielded  the  floor  to  me  altogether.  I  am 
very  much  obliged  to  him,  and  will  relinquish  the 
floor  at  once  if  he  wishes  to  occupy  it.  I  thought  he 
intended  to  yield  to  me  without  qualification,  so  as  to 
have  another  fifteen  minutes  afterward.  But  I  will 
instantly  resign  it,  and  thank  him  for  his  courtesy.  I 
ask  the  gentleman  whether  I  shall  go  on  or  not. 

Mr.  Blaine.     I  wish  to  make  a  single  statement. 

Mr.  Colliding.  I  do  not  understand  that  any  one  but 
the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  can  claim  the  floor. 

Mr.  Blaine.  The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania 
[Mr.  Mercur~]  had  the  floor. 

Mr.  Conkling.  I  decline  to  yield  it  to  the  gentle 
man  from  Maine  [Mr.  Blaine]. 

The  Speaker  pro  tempore.  Does  the  Chair  under 
stand  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  Mercur] 
to  yield  the  floor  entirely  to  the  gentleman  from  New 
York  [Mr.  Conkling}  ? 

Mr.  Mercur.    I  did  not  so  understand  it. 

The  Speaker  pro  tempore.  Then  the  gentleman 
from  New  York  has  the  right  to  resume  the  floor  only 
by  the  consent  of  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania. 

Mr.  Conkling.  I  ask  the  gentleman  from  Penn 
sylvania  [Mr.  Mercur']  whether  he  wishes  now  to  re 
sume  the  floor. 

Mr.  Mercur.  I  designed  to  resume  it  after  the 
gentleman,  but  I  will  allow  him  to  go  on. 


172  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

Mr.  Colliding.  The  letter  which  has  been  read,  at 
the  instance  of  the  gentleman  from  Maine,  from  the 
Lieutenant  General,  has  no  reference  whatever  to  this 
section  of  the  bill  or  to  a  provision  like  this.  It  is  a 
letter  written  on  the  14th  of  December,  when  the  Pro 
vost  Marshal  General's  Bureau  was,  and  was  for  the 
time  to  remain,  in  existence,  and  it  refers  chiefly  to 
what  had  better  be  done  with  deserters,  and  the  state 
ment  of  the  Lieutenant  General  amounts  to  this:  that 
such  an  officer  being  in  existence  it  is  his  appropriate 
business  to  take  charge  of  deserters,  and  he  recom 
mends  that  he  should  do  so,  and  attend  to  recruiting 
besides.  That  is  all.  There  is  no  recommendation 
whatever  favoring  the  retention  of  this  bureau  per 
manently,  or  of  having  any  such  officer  in  the  standing 
Army.  It  comes  to  the  Secretary  of  War  appended  to 
an  argument  made  by  General  Fry  himself,  an  elab 
orate  argument  made  to  show  that  he  is  essential  to 
the  Government.  And  although  it  is  appended  for 
that  purpose,  I  repeat  that  it  has  nothing  to  do  with  this 
subject,  but  relates  wholly  to  what  the  Provost  Mar 
shal's  Bureau  had  better  be  set  to  do  for  the  time  being. 

The  letter  which  I  have  presented  from  the 
Lieutenant  General  was  written  to  a  member  of  the  Mil 
itary  Committee  of  the  Senate,  written  in  answer  to  a 
question  in  reference  to  this  identical  section  proposed 
there,  and  in  answer  to  the  specific  inquiry  whether  he 
was  or  was  not  in  favor  of  continuing  this  bureau. 
And  he  says  in  so  many  words  that  in  his  judgment 
there  is  not  the  slightest  occasion  for  it,  that  bureaus 
ought  not  to  be  multiplied,  and  that  this  one  ought  to 
be  discontinued. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


173 


Therefore,  Mr.  Speaker,  upon  the  authority  not 
only  of  the  Lieutenant  General,  but  of  all  the  generals 
who  constituted  the  military  council,  because  this 
section  was  omitted  in  the  bill  which  they  approved, 
I  have  made  this  motion. 

Now,  sir,  as  to  the  official  conduct  of  this  officer, 
1  have  deemed  it  proper  to  refer  to  it  because  the 
practical  and  real  question  is  whether  he  personally  is 
to  continue  in  his  present  place.  I  have  stated  but  a 
very  small  part  of  what  I  know  from  my  own  investi 
gation  of  the  matter.  And  I  want  it  distinctly  under 
stood  that  in  my  judgment  no  officer  of  this  Govern 
ment  holding  a  similar  position  has  done  so  much 
harm  and  so  little  good  as  the  officer  of  whom  I  am 
speaking.  If  that  is  offensive  to  anybody,  so  be  it. 
To  the  particular  individual  to  whom  it  may  give 
most  offense,  I  will  answer  not  here  but  elsewhere, 
when  it  becomes  necessary. 

Mr.  Spalding.  I  desire  to  ask  my  friend  a  single 
question.  Will  it  not  answer  his  purpose  if  the  House 
vote  down  this  Provost  Marshal's  Bureau  and  let  the 
matter  stop  there  ? 

Mr.  Colliding.    I  think  so. 

Mr.  Spalding.     We  will  do  that  cheerfully. 

Mr.  Corikling.  That  is  all  I  intended  to  do  origi 
nally. 

Mr.  Speaker,  how  much  time  have  I  left  ? 

The  Speaker  pro  tempore.     About  four  minutes. 

Mr.  Oonkling.  Then  I  will  yield  it  to  the  gentle 
man  from  Ohio  [Mr.  Spalding']. 

Mr.  Spalding.     I  wish  to  say  a  few  words. 

The  Speaker  pro  tempore.      Does  the  gentleman 


174 


CONKLTNG    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


from  New  York  [Mr.  Conkling~\  yield  the  floor  to  tlie 
gentleman  from  Ohio  for  the  residue  of  his  time  ? 

Mr.  Spalding.     I  claim  it  on  my  own  merits,  sir. 

The  Speaker  pro  tempore.  The  Chair  now  under 
stands  that  the  gentleman  from  Ohio  [Mr.  8palding~\ 
is  to  speak  during  the  balance  of  the  time  of  the  gen 
tleman  from  New  York  [Mr.  Conkling]. 

Mr.  Gonkling.  I  so  understand.  I  yield  the 
residue  of  my  time  only  to  the  gentleman  from  Ohio, 
because  I  suppose  that  the  gentleman  from  Pennsyl 
vania  [Mr.  Mercur~\,  to  whom  I  am  very  much  in 
debted,  desires  to  occupy  his  full  fifteen  minutes. 

The  Speaker  pro  tempore.  Then  the  gentleman 
from  Ohio  [Mr.  Spalding^  is  entitled  to  the  floor  for 
just  three  minutes. 

Mi'.  Spalding.  Three  minutes  is  enough  for  me. 
I  am  opposed,  sir,  to  the  continuance  of  this  military 
bureau  known  as  the  Provost  Marshal  General's  Office. 
I  am  opposed  to  it  in  time  of  peace,  because  I  consider 
it  an  unnecessary  appendage  to  the  Army.  But  I 
believe  that  during  the  late  war  it  was  a  necessary 
evil,  and  I  think  that  a  great  deal  of  the  odium  which 
has  been  attached  to  the  administration  of  the  duties 
of  that  office  pertained  rather  to  the  nature  of  the 
office  than  to  the  individual  who  discharged  the  duties 
of  the  office.  I  question,  sir,  whether  any  man, 
whether  he  came  from  the  East  or  the  West,  from  the 
North  or  the  South,  could  have  gone  into  the  admin 
istration  of  the  Provost  Marshal  General's  department 
and  discharged  its  duties  with  any  more  satisfaction 
to  the  general  public  than  General  James  B  Fry, 

Now,  I  do  not  claim   that   vast  frauds  have  not 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE  FRY    CONTROVERSY.  175 

been  perpetrated  in  this  as  in  every  other  depart 
ment  of  the  Government  during  the  last  four  years  ; 
I  think  they  have  been.  But  I  do  not  think  any  one 
man  is  responsible  for  them. 

I  think,  perhaps,  the  gentleman  from  New  York 
[Mr.  Conkling\  has  sufficient  cause  for  what  he  has 
said ;  but  such  a  case  as  he  has  mentioned  has  not 
been  brought  home  to  me,  in  all  my  official  intercourse 
with  the  Provost  Marshal  General  during  the  last 
three  years,  and  it  has  been  constant  and  frequent. 
I  have  been  treated  by  him  with  a  degree  of  kindness 
and  courtesy  which  requires  from  me  an  expression  of 
thanks  rather  than  of  censure.  I  am  happy,  therefore, 
to  have  it  in  my  power  to  say  that  I  am  under  obliga 
tions  to  this  man;  and  it  is  a  pleasure  to  me  to  acquit 
myself  of  the  duty  of  doing  so. 

Mr.  -Elaine.  I  do  not  rise  to  argue  the  merits  of 
this  proposition.  I  rise  rather  to  relieve  myself  from 
the  stigma  attempted  to  be  cast  upon  me,  and  to  place 
myself  on  the  record,  as  becomes  a  gentleman  and  a 
Representative. 

I  stated  when  I  was  up  before,  and  I  left  it  to 
the  gentleman  from  New  York  [Mr.  ConJding]  to 
answer  whether  I  stated  it  correctly,  that  I  had 
understood  there  were  personal  difficulties  between 
himself  and  the  Provost  Marshal  General.  I  have  so 
understood  it.  I  have  understood  it  from  very  high 
authority.  I  have  understood  that  in  those  difficulties 
the  gentleman  from  New  York,  as  I  said  before,  did 
not  come  out  first  best.  I  did  not  make  this  as  an 
assertion.  I  left  it  to  him  to  say  whether  it  was  so 
or  not.  Certainly  I  did  not  violate  any  principle  of 


176  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

propriety  or  of  parliamentary  etiquette.  And,  sir, 
even  were  I  in  full  health  (and  I  ought  to  be  in  my  bed 
to-day),  I  could  not  consent  to  go  into  this  cheap  sort 
of  stuff  about  answering  "here  and  elsewhere,"and  about 
"  personal  responsibility  "  and  all  that  kind  of  thing. 

Sir,  I  do  not  know  how  to  characterize  it.  When 
we  had  gentlemen  here  from  the  eleven  seceded 
States,  they  used  to  talk  about  answering  "  here  and 
elsewhere  " ;  and  it  was  understood  that  they  meant 
a  duel !  I  suppose  the  gentleman  from  New  York 
means  nothing  of  that  kind ;  I  do  not  know  whether 
he  does  or  not ;  but  that  is  the  only  meaning  that  can 
be  attached  to  the  phrase.  When  a  man  says  that  he 
is  ready  to  answer  "  here  or  elsewhere,"  he  means  that 
he  is  willing  to  receive  a  note  outside  of  the  District 
of  Columbia.  Well,  now,  that  is  very  cheap,  and  cer 
tainly  beneath  my  notice.  I  do  not  believe  the  gen 
tleman  from  New  York  wants  to  fight  a  duel;  and  I 
am  sure  he  needs  no  assurance  from  me  that  I  do  not 
intend  it.  When  I  have  to  resort  to  the  use  of  the 
epithet  of  "false"  upon  this  floor,  and  this  cheap 
swagger  about  being  responsible  "  here  or  elsewhere," 
I  shall  have  very  little  faith  in  the  cause  which  I 
stand  up  to  maintain. 

Mr.  Mercur.  Mr.  Speaker,  in  addition  to  the  objec 
tions,  which  appear  to  me  to  be  personal  to  the  present 
Provost  Marshal  General,  it  strikes  me  there  are  many 
objections  to  the  establishment  of  this  bureau  as  a 
permanent  one.  The  reasons  for  its  existence  during 
the  war  were  manifest ;  but  it  strikes  me  that  the 
reasons  which  exist  for  its  abolishment  since  the  ter 
mination  of  the  war  are  equally  manifest. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  177 

The  bill,  upon  its  face,  provides  for  two  classes 
of  duiies  to  be  performed  by  this  bureau.  The  one  is 
the  recruiting  of  the  Army,  and  the  other  is  the  arrest 
of  deserters.  It  provides  that  two  persons  shall  take 
charge  of  these  duties,  one  witli  the  rank  of  brigadier 
general,  and  the  other  with  the  rank  of  colonel  of 
cavalry. 

Now,  it  appears  to  me  that  all  these  duties  can 
be  properly  performed  by  a  person  occupying  a  lower 
position,  and  receiving  much  less  compensation  than 
these  persons  would  receive.  The  recruiting  of  the 
Army  is  not  a  business  of  such  vast  dimensions,  nor 
will  it  be  prolonged  so  long  as  to  require  the  creation 
of  a  permanent  bureau  like  this. 

After  the  Army  is  filled,  and  we  are  informed 
that  during  the  last  six  months  recruiting  has  gone  on 
very  rapidly,  this  will  not  be  needed,  and  whatever 
number  we  may  fix  upon  as  the  proper  number  for 
the  Army,  we  have  reason  to  know  that  the  vacuum 
can  be  filled  up  in  a  few  months  without  any  great 
difficulty;  and  when  the  Army  is  once  filled  on  a 
peace  establishment  the  duties  of  a  bureau  of  this 
kind,  so  far  as  recruiting  is  concerned,  will  necessarily 
be  very  small. 

Now,  in  regard  to  the  other  duties  of  this  office,  the 
arrest  of  deserters,  I  take  it  that  there  cannot  now  be  a 
very  large  number  of  deserters  that  the  Government 
proposes  to  pursue  and  arrest  and  punish.  In  these 
days  of  general  amnesty  and  of  general  pardon,  I  pre 
sume  the  Government  will  not  pursue  very  sharply 
and  rigidly  those  persons  who  have  deserted  from  the 
armies  of  the  Union,  And  if  there  is  no  great  num- 


178 


CONKLING    AND     BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


her  of  deserters  now  who  are  to  be  arrested,  is  it  to  be 
supposed  or  assumed  that  the  number  will  increase  to 
such  an  extent  in  the  future  as  to  create  a  necessity 
for  a  permanent  bureau  to  look  after  and  arrest  de 
serters  ?  I  think  not ;  and  hence  I  assume  that  neith 
er  for  the  one  purpose  nor  the  other  specified  in  the 
bill  is  there  any  necessity  for  the  creation  of  a  per 
manent  bureau  of  this  character. 

Now,  in  addition  to  the  absence  of  any  necessity 
for  this  bureau,  it  does  strike  me,  if  I  understand  the 
sentiment  of  the  country  aright,  a  sentiment  which  grew 
and  strengthened  with  the  progress  of  the  recent  re 
bellion,  that  the  present  head  of  this  bureau  did  not 
satisfy  public  expectation  in  the  discharge  of  his  duties. 
It  is  not  my  design  to  attribute  a  want  of  good  faith  or 
a  want  of  integrity  to  that  bureau.  In  my  judgment, 
though  I  may  err,  it  was  a  want  of  capacity  which 
created  the  great  dissatisfaction  which  existed  in 
the  minds  of  the  loyal  people  throughout  the 

country. 

•j 

The  fact  cannot  be  disguised  that  a  great  many 
of  the  complications  and  entanglements  which  arose 
during  the  progress  of  the  war  were  solely  in  conse 
quence  of  the  orders  which  issued  from  time  to  time 
from  the  Provost  Marshal  General's  Office.  They  com 
plicated  matters  so  much,  one  followed  the  other  in 
such  rapid  succession,  changing,  modifying,  and  throw 
ing  confusion  upon  what  had  preceded,  that  no  one 
could  form  any  adequate  idea  of  what  was  required. 
No  district  could  tell  how  many  men  it  had  to  raise, 
or  how  many  men  they  had  received  credit  for.  Such 
being  the  fact,  there  is  no  reason,  no  justice,  no  pro- 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  179 

priety,  in  continuing  this  bureau  for  the  benefit  of  the 
present  incumbent. 

The  gentleman  from  New  York  [Mr.  Conkling~\ 
has  suggested  one  thing  in  which  this  bureau  was 
somewhat  conspicuous,  that  is,  its  power  of  absorption 
of  the  commutation  money  which  was  paid  by  people 
all  over  the  country,  and  of  which  no  satisfactory  ac 
count  has  yet  been  rendered.  But  there  was  another 
reputation  which  this  bureau  established,  and  that 
was  its  peculiar  and  unique  way  of  combining  figures. 
The  country  was  frequently  astonished  by  this  rare 
and  peculiar  power  of  combining  figures,  not  only 
during  the  progress  of  the  war,  but  since  we  have  met 
here  this  session.  I  refer  to  the  efforts  made  to  arrive 
at  the  probable  cost  to  this  Government  in  case  we 
should  adopt  some  system  of  equalizing  the  bounties 
to  be  given  to  our  soldiers.  We  met  here,  every  man 
of  us  zealous  and  warm  in  his  desire  to  equalize  the 
bounties.  But  the  Provost  Marshal  General,  with  his 
peculiar  combination  of  figures,  has  again  thrown  a 
damper  upon  us. 

It  strikes  me  that  the  House  ought  with  great 
unanimity  to  vote  down  this  section  and  cause  this 
bureau  to  be  abolished. 

Mr.  Stevens.    I  move    to  insert  the   following  in 

o 

the  place  of  the  section  which  it  is  proposed  to  strike 
out : 

< ;  That  the  Provost  Marshal' s  Bureau  shall  be  continued  only  so 
long  as  in  the  judgment  of  the  Secretary  of  War  may  be  necessary  to 
close  up  the  business  thereof,  not  exceeding,  however,  six  months 
from  the  passage  of  this  act. ' ' 

Mr.  ConMing.  I  will  accept  the  proposition  of 
the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  Stevens}. 


180  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

Mr.  Sclienck.  My  impression  is  that  the  sense 
of  this  House  is  against  the  section  as  it  stands  in  the 

o 

bill,  and  I  certainly  do  not  mean  to  struggle  to  keep 
it  there.  But  it  is  equally  certain  that  it  is  somewhat 
due  to  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  that  this 
House  should  clearly  understand  why  it  was  that  the 
Committee  believed  that  in  an  army  bill  a  feature  of 
this  kind  should  compose  one  of  its  parts. 

I  will  not  go  into  any  question  about  the  charac 
ter  of  the  present  incumbent  of  the  Provost  Marshal 
General's  Office.  He  is  able  to  defend  that  for  him 
self.  It  is  defended  by  the  history  of  the  war.  It  is 
defended  by  his  services  through  good  report  and 
evil  report.  According  to  the  best  of  his  ability,  that 
officer  has  so  discharged  his  duty  that  those  in  his 
own  immediate  department,  who  know  best  how  that 
duty  has  been  discharged,  have  no  such  epithets  to 
bestow  upon  him  as  that  he  is  an  undeserving  officer. 

It  is  not  for  me,  therefore,  to  inquire  why  gentle 
men  make  personal  issues  with  that  officer  here,  in  a  de 
bate  upon  a  feature  in  a  military  bill  which  has  no 
reference  to  persons,  but  merely  to  a  plan,  a  scheme 
of  operations.  And  I  here  desire  to  say  to  the  House, 
in  behalf  of  the  Military  Committee,  that  in  all  their 
labor  of  consideration,  discussion,  inquiry,  and  other 
work  tending  to  the  framing  of  a  proper  bill  for  the 
establishment  of  an  army  system,  they  have  endeav 
ored  to  act  without  reference  to  persons,  having  in 
view  only  the  best  schemes  for  the  attainment  of  ob 
jects  which  might  result  in  the  public  good. 

There  is  nothing  about  General  Fry  in  this  sec 
tion.  The  probability  is,  that  if  the  section  should 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  181 

prevail  as  a  part  of  the  bill,  General  Fry  would  be  re 
tained  in  his  present  position ;  but  it  would  not  neces 
sarily  be  so.  The  question  truly  before  this  House,  as 
a  legislative  body,  is  whether  or  not  the  committee 
were  right  in  supposing  that  a  Provost  Marshal  Gen 
eral's  Office,  as  a  feature  of  a  military  system,  is  needed. 
Now,  upon  that  subject,  gentlemen  have  not  been 
quite  fair  in  referring  to  the  testimony  upon  which 
the  opinion  of  the  committee,  in  favor  of  such  neces 
sity,  was  based.  The  gentleman  from  New  York 
[Mr.  ConKtmff],  in  commenting  upon  the  letter  of  the 
Lieutenant  General,  sent  in  response  to  a  call  made 
upon  him  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  officially  com 
municated  to  this  House,  and  by  this  House  referred 
to  the  Military  Committee,  has  taken  occasion  to  say 
that  there  is  nothing  in  that  letter  about  recruiting, 
that  it  relates  to  desertion. 

Mr.  Conkling.  The  gentleman  misunderstood  me. 
I  said  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  communication 
about  a  continuation  of  the  Provost  Marshal  General's 
Bureau ;  that  it  referred  simply  to  the  business  in  which 
that  bureau  would  be  employed  while  it  exists. 

Mr.  Schenck.  And  that  its  employment  was  to 
be  in  the  arrest  of  deserters. 

Mr.  ConMing.     No,  sir;  I  did  not  say  that. 

Mr.  ScJienck.  Then  I  misunderstood  the  gentle 
man. 

I  wish  now  to  call  the  attention  of  the  House  to 
the  letter  of  General  Grant,  which,  in  connection  with 
other  communications  of  opinion  made  to  the  commit 
tee,  induced  the  committee  to  adopt  this  as  a  feature 
of  their  bill.  Certainly  the  committee  were  justified 


182 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


in  supposing  that  the  communication  of  General  Grant 
was  intended  to  recommend  just  what  they  did.  Gen 
eral  Grant,  in  his  subsequent  letter,  communicated 
now  informally  and  indirectly  to  this  House,  has  ex 
plained  that  perhaps  he  was  misunderstood.  But  that 
does  not  alter  the  fact  that  here  was  the  letter,  and 
this  was  the  character  of  the  recommendation  con 
tained  in  that  letter. 

The  question  was  the  subject  of  recruiting  and 
desertion ;  how  the  one  should  be  promoted  and  the 
other  prevented.  Now,  sir,  it  is  a  notorious  fact  that 
heretofore  recruiting  for  filling  up  the  ranks  of  the 
regular  Army  of  the  United  States  has  been  to  a  con 
siderable  degree  a  failure.  Whose  fault  it  is,  I  do  not 
undertake  now  to  say ;  but  the  fact  is  incontestable 
that  heretofore  recruiting  has  been  conducted  by  the 
detail  of  an  officer  who  wanted  an  agreeable  visit  to  a 
quiet  country  town  or  a  pleasant  residence  for  a  time  in 
some  city.  This  commissioned  officer,  while  boarding 
at  a  hotel,  and  occasionally  visiting  the  rendezvous,  left 
the  business  of  recruiting  to  be  performed  by  some 
sergeant,  aided,  it  may  be,  by  a  private  or  two,  also 
detailed  as  a  portion  of  the  party.  Thus  the  work  of 
recruiting  was  slow  and  quite  inefficient  in  its  general 
results. 

I  remember  very  well  having  been  compelled  to 
turn  my  attention  to  the  mode  in  which  this  business 
was  conducted  in  a  neighboring  city,  when  myself  in 
the  military  service ;  and  I  remember  that  week  after 
week  and  month  after  month  the  reports  of  the  re 
cruiting  officers,  both  for  the  regular  army  and  for  vol 
unteers,  read  about  in  this  way:  "For  the  month  of 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  183 

April,  total  number  of  recruits  four  ;  total  number  of 
deserters  four.  For  the  month  of  May,  total  number 
of  recruits  three  ;  total  number  of  deserters  three." 

Once  in  a  while  there  was  at  the  end  of  the  month 
a  small  margin  of  one  or  two  recruits,  who  might  or 
might  not  find  their  way  from  the  recruiting  station 
to  a  place  in  the  ranks. 

Now,  sir,  this  is  as  well  understood  by  General 
Grant  as  anybody  else,  and  in  the  very  commencement 
of  this  letter  he  says  : 

"  I  do  not  think  the  present  method  of  recruiting,  as  carried  out, 
sufficient  to  fill  up  the  regular  Army  to  the  force  required,  or  to  keep  it 
full  when  once  filled." 

Here  is  the  evil  of  which  the  Lieutenant  General 
complains.  The  committee  came  to  the  same  conclu 
sion,  not  merely  from  his  testimony,  but  from  other 
facts  and  other  reports  laid  before  them  •  and  although 
now,  at  the  close  of  the  war,  recruiting  is  going 
on  very  well  indeed,  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania 
is  very  much  mistaken  in  supposing  that  there  are  not 
desertions,  and  a  great  many  desertions.  There  is  for 
some  reason  an  unusual  proportion  of  deserters. 

But  in  this  state  of  fact,  what  did  Lieutenant 
General  Grant  say,  when  appealed  to  by  the  Secretary 
of  War  ?  He  said  :  "  The  duty  is  an  important  one, 
and  demands,  I  think,  the  exclusive  attention  of  an 
officer  of  the  War  Department."  Not  his  casual  at 
tention  in  connection  with  some  other  department  on 
the  part  of  the  same  officer  to  whom  it  shall  be  given. 
No,  sir,  his  exclusive  attention  to  this  matter  is  re 
quired.  He  says  it1"  demands,  I  think,  the  exclusive  at 
tention  of  an  officer  of  the  War  Department,  aided  by 


184 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


a  well-organized  system."  That  is  not  different  from 
what  the  Provost  Marshal  is  now.  There  must  be  an 
officer  who  shall  devote  himself  exclusively  to  this 
business,  aided  by  a  well-organized  system  extending 
over  the  country.  He  says  : 

' '  I  think  the  officer  best  fitted  for  that  position  by  his  experience 
during  the  present  war  is  General  Fry,  and  would  recommend  that 
the  whole  subject  of  recruiting  be  put  in  his  hands,  and  all  officers  on 
recruiting  duty  be  directed  to  report  to  him. ' ' 

He  then  goes  a  step  further,  and  proposes  to  con 
fer  upon  this  officer  everything  relating  to  the  appre 
hension  of  deserters. 

I  think,  under  these  circumstances,  his  recom 
mending  the  creation  of  a  distinct  system,  at  the  head 
of  which  was  to  be  put  this  officer,  whose  exclusive 
duty  it  should  be  to  take  care  of  recruiting  and  de 
sertions,  justified  the  committee  in  supposing  that  it 
was  equivalent  to  a  recommendation  for  a  distinct 
feature  in  the  administration  of  the  War  Department 
by  which  these  objects  should  be  accomplished  and 
these  measures  carried  out. 

I  say  this  as  I  felt  it  was  due  to  the  committee, 
or  a  majority  of  the  committee,  in  justification  of  their 
action  in  making  this  Provost  Marshal's  Bureau  a  part 
of  the  military  system. 

The  House  may  differ  from  us  ;  I  think  they  do. 
But  I  am  not  at  all  solicitous  about  this.  I  am  not 
disposed  to  regard  it  in  the  light  of  a  pet  measure, 
however  any  be  sharpened  in  opposition  to  it. 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  add  that  the  proposition 
of  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  Stevens] 
should  be  adopted,  or  something  should  be  inserted  in 
the  bill  to  continue  this  bureau,  in  order  to  finish  up  the 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  185 

business  of  the  war.  If  you  strike  out  this  section 
you  ought  to  put  in  some  provision  for  six  months  or 
some  other  time,  such  as  will  prevent  the  bureau  clos 
ing  at  a  loss  to  the  Government  and  a  derangement  of 
the  military  system  so  far  as  the  trust  reposed  hereto 
fore  in  that  office  is  concerned. 

I  now  demand  the  previous  question. 

Mr.  Farqukar.  I  ask  the  gentleman  to  withdraw 
the  call  for  the  previous  question. 

Mr.  Schenck.    I  will  if  the  gentleman  will  renew  it. 

Mr.  Farquhar.     I  will. 

Mr.  Speaker,  having  served  under  the  orders  of 
the  Provost  Marshal  General  in  the  discharge  of  the 
duties  of  a  mustering  and  disbursing  officer  in  the 
State  of  Indiana,  and  having  had  personal  opportuni 
ties  to  know  the  importance  of  that  system,  I  feel  I 
should  not  have  discharged  my  duty  to  myself,  to  my 
State,  nor  to  this  House  if  I  should  remain  silent  until 
this  vote  was  taken,  without  saying  a  word  in  regard 
to  the  manner  in  which  the  duties  of  the  Provost  Mar 
shal  General  have  been  discharged  in  respect  to  that 
State.  I  desire  to  say  that  in  the  administration  of 
the  officer  in  charge  of  that  department,  I  never  did 
hear  any  charge  made  against  the  efficiency,  against 
the  promptness,  against  the  success  of  the  officer  in 
charge  of  that  department,  but,  on  the  contrary,  and  I 
say  it  with  pleasure,  the  duties  of  that  office  were  per 
formed  with  evidence  of  the  highest  ability  and  the 
greatest  satisfaction.  During  the  time  I  had  an  op 
portunity  of  serving  under  that  officer,  a  large  amount 
of  recruits  were  raised,  both  to  fill  up  old  regiments 
and  to  create  new  regiments,  with  a  success  which  did 


186  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

not  attend  the  service  when  another  officer  was  in 
charge  of  that  department.  I  take  pleasure,  without 
entering  into  the  controversy,  if  I  may  so  call  it,  re 
garding  that  system  in  this  House  and  in  regard  to 
the  duties  and  services  of  that  high  officer,  to  say  to-day 
that  I  bear  testimony  to  the  highest  ability  of  that 
officer  in  the  full  discharge  of  these  duties. 

I  will  take  up  but  a  moment  more.  What  will 
be  the  effect  of  striking  out  the  section  of  the  bill 
which  proposes  to  continue  that  office  as  it  is  now  ?  It 
will  be  nothing  more  than  to  turn  the  duties  of  that 
office  back  to  the  Adjutant  General's  department. 
We  did  nothing  more  in  the  creation  of  that  bureau 
than  to  detail  an  officer  from  the  War  Department  to 
perform  its  duty.  By  striking  out  that  from  the  bill 
you  will  turn  it  back  to  the  Adjutant  General's  de 
partment.  What  will  then  be  done  ?  The  War  De 
partment  will  detail  the  same  officer,  bearing  the  same 
rank,  receiving  the  same  pay,  with  the  same  assistants 
for  that  purpose.  I  cannot,  therefore,  see  much  econ 
omy  in  taking  the  bureau  from  the  position  it  now 
occupies. 

I  renew  the  demand  for  the  previous  question. 

Mr.  Schenck.  I  think  the  amendment  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  Stevens] 
limiting  the  time,  if  the  section  is  to  be  stricken  out, 
ought  to  be  made  a  part  of  the  bill. 

The  previous  question  was  seconded  and  the  main 
question  ordered  ;  and  under  the  operation  thereof  the 
amendment  was  agreed  to. 


APPENDIX  B. 

i 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES,  Monday,  April  30, 
1866.  The  House  met  at  twelve  o'clock,  M.  Prayer 
by  the  Chaplain,  Rev.  O.  B.  Boynton. 

PROVOST  MARSHAL  GENERAL  FRY. 

Mr.  Blaine.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Massachu 
setts  [Mr.  Eliot]  yield  to  me  a  moment  ? 

Mr.  Eliot.     Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  letter  from  Pro 
vost  Marshal  General  Fry,  which  I  ask  to  have  read  at 
the  Clerk's  desk  for  the  double  purpose  of  vindicating 
myself  from  the  charge  of  having  stated  in  debate 
last  week  what  was  false,  and  also  for  the  purpose, 
which  I  am  sure  will  commend  itself  to  the  House,  of 
allowing  fair  play  to  an  honorable  man  in  the  same 
forum  in  which  he  has  been  assailed. 

The  Speaker.  It  requires  unanimous  consent  to 
have  it  read.  Is  there  objection  ? 

Mr.  Conlding.  I  infer  that  this  has  some  refer 
ence  to  me.  I  shall  make  no  objection,  provided  I  may 
have  an  opportunity  to  reply  to  whatever  the  letter 
may  call  for  hereafter. 

Mr.  Stevens.  I  hope  this  will  be  postponed  until 
we  get  through  this  bill.  I  object  to  interrupting  it 
in  this  way. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I  move  to  suspend  the  rules  to  allow 
it  to  be  read. 

The  Speaker.  The  House  is  now  engaged  in  the 
consideration  of  a  bill  brought  up  under  a  suspension 
of  the  rules ;  it  cannot,  therefore,  suspend  the  rules  to 
consider  another  matter. 

187 


188  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

PKOVOST  MARSHAL  GENERAL  FRY — AGAIN. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I  ask  to  send  to  the  Clerk's  table  to 
have  read  the  letter  the  reading  of  which  was  objected 
to  this  morning. 

Mr.  Conkling.  I  do  not  object,  but  only  ask,  if 
the  matter  relates  to  me,  to  have  an  opportunity  to 
reply. 

Mr.  Blaine.     I  wish  to  repeat  what  I  said  before. 

Mr.  Ross.  I  object  to  the  gentleman  from  New 
York  making  a  speech. 

Mr.  Conkling.  The  gentleman  does  not  want  a 
letter  to  be  read  relating  to  a  member  and  then  not 
permit  that  member  to  reply. 

Mr.  Hoss.     I  withdraw  my  objection. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I  want  this  letter  read  for  the  double 
purpose  of  vindicating  myself  from  the  charge  of  hav 
ing  made  an  untruthful  statement  on  this  floor,  and  to 
give,  in  the  broad  American  sense,  fair  play  and  oppor 
tunity  to  a  worthy  officer  to  be  heard  in  a  forum  where 
he  has  been  assailed. 

I  wish  further  to  say  that  if,  on  investigation,  I  had 
found  I  was  in  error  in  the  statement  I  had  made 
touching  the  member  from  the  Utica  district  of  New 
York  [Mr.  Conkling]  and  Provost  Marshal  General 
Fry,  I  would,  mortifying  as  it  would  have  been,  apolo 
gized  to  the  House.  Whether  I  was  in  error  or  not  I 
leave  to  those  who  hear  the  letter  of  the  Provost  Mar 
shal  General. 

The  Clerk  read  as  follows : 

WAR  DEPARTMENT, 

PROVOST   MARSHAL  GENERAL'S   BUREAU, 

Washington,  April  27,  1866. 
SIR  :     I  have  to  thank  you  for  repelling  as  you  did.  in  the  House 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  1  89 

of  Representatives,  on  the  25th  instant,  the  very  extraordinary  assault 
upon  me  by  Hon.  Roscoe  Conkling,  of  New  York.  It  was  a  defense  of 
me  in  a  forum  where  I  had  no  opportunity  to  be  personally  heard,  and 
I  am  enabled  to  say  that  your  assertions  touching  Mr.  Conkling' s  diffi 
culties  with  this  bureau  are  amply  and  completely  justified  by  the  facts 
which  this  letter  will  disclose. 

My  official  intercourse  with  Representatives  in  Congress  during  the 
past  three  years  has  been  constant  and  in  many  cases  intimate,  and, 
with  the  solitary  exception  of  Mr.  Conkling,  it  has  been  marked,  so  far 
as  I  remember,  by  mutual  honor  and  fair  dealing.  Mr.  Conkling  be 
ing  thus  an  exception,  it  is  my  purpose  to  give  a  brief  summary  of  his 
connection  and  intercourse  with  this  bureau. 

In  the  summer  of  1863  Mr.  Conkling  made  a  case  for  himself  by 
telegraphing  to  the  War  Department  that  the  provost  marshal  of  his 
district  required  legal  advice,  which  he  was  thereupon  empowered  to 
give. 

In  April,  1865,  Mr.  Charles  A.  Dana,  then  Assistant  Secretary  of 
War,  without  notifying  me,  had  Mr.  Conkling  appointed  to  investigate 
all  frauds  in  enlistments  in  western  New  York,  with  the  stipulation 
that  he  should  be  commissioned  judge  advocate  for  the  prosecution 
of  any  cases  brought  to  trial,  and  he  was  so  appointed  to  prosecute, 
before  a  general  court-martial,  Major  J.  A.  Haddock.  Mr  Dana  vested 
him,  by  several  orders  issued  in  the  name  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  with 
out  the  sanction  of  Mr.  Stanton,  with  the  most  extraordinary  powers. 
Among  these  was  the  right  to  examine  the  dispatches  in  all  telegraph 
offices  in  the  western  division  of  New  York,  which  enabled  a  violation 
of  the  sanctity  of  personal  and  business  correspondence.  For  his  ser 
vices  in  this  connection  Mr.  Conkling  received,  on  the  9th  of  November 
last,  from  the  United  States,  the  modest  fee  of  $3,000.  Whether  he  re 
ceived,  as  it  has  been  reported,  from  his  district  $5,000  more  for  the 
same  service,  and  whether  he  received  additional  fees  from  guilty 
parties  for  opposing  proceedings  at  Utica,  I  am  unable  now  to  say, 
but,  as  hereafter  shown,  he  was  as  zealous  in  preventing  prosecutions 
at  Utica,  as  he  was  in  making  them  at  Elmira ;  and  the  main  ground 
of  difficulty  between  Mr.  Conkling  and  myself  has  been  that  I  wanted 
exposure  at  both  places,  while  he  wanted  concealment  at  one.  I  sup 
pose  there  can  be  no  doubt  among  high-minded  men  as  to  the  character 
of  Mr.  Conkling' s  course  in  this  matter.  Whether  his  action  in  exer 
cising  the  functions  of  judge  advocate  and  receiving  pay  therefor 
from  the  United  States  to  the  amount  of  $3,000  while  receiving  his  com 
pensation  as  a  member  of  Congress  was  a  violation  of  the  letter  or  spirit, 
or  both,  of  article  one,  section  two,  of  the  Constitution,  I  leave  others 
to  decide. 


190 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


As  to  the  animus  of  Mr.  Conkling'  s  calumnious  assault  upon  me,  it 
is  true  (notwithstanding  his  assertion  that  he  had  no  personal  quarrels 
with  me)  that  the  differences  between  him  and  myself  arose  altogether 
from  my  unwillingness  to  gratify  him  in  certain  matters  in  which  he 
had  a  strong  personal  interest.  It  is  true,  also,  that  he  was  foiled  in 
his  efforts  to  obtain  undue  concessions  from  my  bureau,  and  to  discredit 
me  in  the  eyes  of  my  superiors. 

There  have  been  three  main  issues  between  Mr.  Conkling  and  my 
self. 

The  first  arose  in  consequence  of  the  removal  of  Captain  Richard 
son  (the  first  provost  marshal  of  Mr  Conkling' s  district),  upon  a  re 
port  of  Judge  Advocate  Turner,  that  the  proofs  in  his  case  disclosed  a 
reckless  persistence  in  fraudu  lent  practices.  Mr.  Conkling  complained 
of  my  action  both  to  the  President  and  War  Department,  but  failed  to 
procure  any  modification  of  my  course. 

The  second  issue  was  as  to  the  restoring  of  Captain  Crandall  (the 
second  provost  marshal  of  the  district),  after  I  had  secured  his  removal 
from  duty  on  the  recommendation  of  Major  Ludington,  who  thoroughly 
inspected  the  district  and  reported  that  though  not  legally  guilty  he  had 
morally  perpetrated  a  most  glaring  and  inexcusable  fraud  on  the 
Government  he  was  sworn  to  serve,  and  that  he  had  quieted  his  con 
science  by  casuistry  and  regulated  his  actions  by  the  counsel  of  unscru 
pulous  legal  advisers.  Mr.  Conkling  failed  to  get  Captain  Crandall  re 
stored,  and  the  officer  selected  by  me  continued  in  charge  cf  the  busi 
ness  until  the  office  was  closed. 

The  third  issue  was  as  to  the  Government's  employing  counsel  to 
defend  Captain  Crandall  after  he  had  been  relieved  and  bad  carried  with 
him,  in  violation  of  the  orders  of  the  Department,  some  twenty  thou 
sand  dollars,  local  bounty  deposited  with  him  in  behalf  of  recruits, 
and  in  regard  to  which  he  got  into  litigation.  In  this  Mr.  Conkling 
failed  Counsel  has  not,  to  my  knowledge,  been  authorized,  nor  have 
any  lawyers  been  paid  by  the  Government  in  that  suit. 

In  support  of  his  denial  of  differences  with  me,  which  influenced 
his  action,  Mr.  Conkling  states  the  fact  that  we  had  but  one  personal 
interview.  That  is  true,  but  it  proves  the  reverse  of  what  Mr.  Conk 
ling  asserts,  for  it  was  of  such  a  nature  as  to  render  other  interviews 
very  objectionable.  I  was  called  to  Mr.  Dana's  office  to  have  a  verbal 
discussion  with  Mr.  Conkling  on  the  questions  at  issue,  but  I  had  by 
this  time  learned  too  much  of  this  gentleman  to  transact  business  with 
him  in  that  way,  and  I  declined  to  do  so.  We  had,  directly  and  indi 
rectly,  much  correspondence,  and  generally  of  an  unpleasant  character, 
and  I  presume  under  such  circumstances  it  will  be  granted  that  men's 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


191 


personal  relations  will  be  bad,  although  they  may  have  had  but  one 
personal  interview. 

Notwithstanding  Mr.  Conkling's  denial  in  the  House,  his  own  let 
ters  as  well  as  the  foregoing  statements  show  that  there  were  differ 
ences,  and  that  he  was  "worsted/'  On  the  25th  of  October,  1865,  he 
wrote  the  Secretary  of  War,  saying:  .  .  .  "  It  is  now  many  months 
since  I  have  been  able  to  obtain  any  response  from  the  Department 
touching  the  interests  of  the  Government  in  this  District.  Still  I 
venture  one  more  trial  ' '  &c. 

Mr.  Conkling  asserts,  and  presents  it  as  an  offense  or  crime  on  my 
part,  that  Major  Haddock  was  my  crony,  confidant,  &c.,  and  that  I  jus 
tified  him  (Haddock)  down  to  the  time  when  his  sentence  was  pub 
lished  and  afterward. 

These  assertions  are  not  true.  Major  Haddock  was  never  my  con 
fidant  or  crony.  Prior  to  his  entry  into  the  Veteran  Reserve  Corps  1  had 
never  heard  of  him.  He  was  appointed  to  that  corps  by  a  special  order 
from  the  Secretary  of  War,  without  any  knowledge  or  action  on  my 
part.  He  served  under  General  Oakes,  in  Illinois,  by  whom  he  was 
highly  recommended  to  me. 

He  then  served  for  a  short  time  in  a  subordinate  position  in  a 
branch  of  my  office,  without  my  becoming  intimate  with  him,  person 
ally  or  officially.  He  has  never  made  a  social  or  personal  call  on  me 
in  his  life.  He  was  highly  recommended  by  the  officer  under  whom 
he  served  in  my  office,  and  was  selected  for  a  temporary  provost  marshal - 
ship  in  Pennsylvania,  where  he  rendered  efficient  service,  without  his 
integrity  or  capacity  being  questioned.  After  serving  for  a  short  time 
with  fidelity,  so  far  as  I  know,  as  acting  provost  marshal  at  Buffalo, 
he  was  selected  as  acting  assistant  provost  marshal  general  at  Elmira 
for  the  reason,  and  that  only,  that  I  thought  he  was  upright  and  suited 
to  the  position.  In  that  position  1  befriended  and  sustained  him  until 
I  had  proper  evidence  of  his  being  unworthy,  and  not  a  day  longer: 
but  on  this  point  I  required  better  testimony  than  Hon.  Roscoe  (  onk- 
ling.  I  received  a  letter  dated  as  late  as  March  29,  1865,  from  Hon. 
Hamilton  Ward,  Member  of  Congress  of  the  district  in  which  Major 
Haddock  was  stationed,  claiming  to  be  familiar  with  Haddock's 
course  and  the  motives  of  the  persons  operating  against  him,  "and 
protesting  against  his  removal ' '  ;  but,  notwithstanding  this,  as  scon  as 
the  official  report  against  him  was  received,  on  the  1st  of  April.  I  had 
him  relieved  and  his  conduct  put  under  investigation.  He  had  not 
then  been  four  months  on  duty  as  acting  assistant  provost  marshal  gen 
eral. 

After  his  trial  and  dismissal  Major  Haddock  came  to  Washington 
to  get  a  revocation  or  modification  of  his  sentence.  He  pointed  out  to 


192  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

me  instances  of  unfairness  in  his  trial,  but  I  declined  to  do  anything 
in  aid  of  his  object,  as  I  thought  he  deserved  punishment,  not  for  all 
the  crimes  with  which  Mr.  Conkling  charged  him,  but  for  the  offenses 
of  which  he  was  really  guilty.  I  even  refused  to  give  him  a  letter  as 
to  his  behavior  prior  to  his  being  accused,  because  I  knew  that  such  a 
letter,  though  perhaps  not  wrong  in  itself,  would  be  used  to  accomplish 
a  purpose  which  I  did  not  approve  namely,  his  pardon. 

Major  Haddock  went  on  duty  at  Elmira  as  acting  assistant  provost 
marshal  general,  December  9.  1864. 

An  inspection  made  at  my  request  the  latter  part  of  March.  1865, 
elicited  the  first  information  which  I  received  suitable  for  proceeding 
against  him. 

I  received  the  report  on  the  first  of  April,  and  on  the  same  day  I 
submitted  it  to  the  Secretary  of  War,  with  the  recommendation  that 
Major  Haddock  be  relieved  from  duty  as  acting  assistant  provost  mar 
shal  general  of  Western  New  York,  and  that  his  conduct  be  further 
investigated,  which  was  approved  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  Major 
Haddock  was  promptly  relieved. 

The  prosecution  of  Major  Haddock  was,  on  April  3  1865,  made  the 
special  business  of  Mr.  Conkling  and  the  Judge  Advocate  General 
of  the  Army,  as  shown  by  a  letter  from  Mr.  Charles  A.  Dana,  Assistant 
Secretary  of  War.  But  whenever  I  had  an  opportunity,  and  so  far  as  I 
had  power,  I  urged  forward  the  trial  of  Major  Haddock.  I  was  told  by 
Mr.  Dana,  early  in  April,  that  Mr.  Conkling  would  prepare  charges, 
but  hearing  nothing  definite  in  regard  to  them,  I,  on  the  22d  of  April, 
1865,  wrote  to  Mr.  Conkling  asking  when  he  would  be  ready  to  proceed 
with  the  trial,  to  which  I  received  a  reply  saying  that  he  had  forwarded 
the  charges  to  the  Secretary  of  War.  This  letter  I  at  once  (May  1st)  re 
ferred  to  the  Judge  Advocate  General,  with  the  request  that  the  trial 
might  take  place  as  soon  as  possible.  The  court  was  ordered  to  con 
vene  on  the  17th  of  May,  1865.  Notwithstanding  Mr.  Conkling  was 
directed  to  get  his  instructions  from  General  Holt,  he  frequently  ap 
plied  to  me.  On  the  15th  of  May  I  referred  a  letter  from  him  of  the 
13th  with  the  following  indorsement:  "Respectfully  referred  to  the 
Judge  Advocate  General,  with  the  request  that  he  will  answer  Mr. 
Conkling' s  inquiries  by  telegraph  to-day,  as  the  court  meets  day  after 
to-morrow.  Mr.  Conkling  is  Judge  Advocate  of  the  Court,  and  I  recom 
mend  that  all  proper  authority  and  facilities  be  granted  to  him  at  once. ' ' 
When  the  organization  of  the  court  was  delayed  by  the  absence  of  mem 
bers  I  secured  at  once  the  detail  of  other  officers,  and  notified  Mr  Conk 
ling  by  telegraph.  There  are  other  facts  bearing  on  this  point,  but  the 
foregoing  are,  I  think,  sufficient  to  show  my  desire  to  have  Major  Had 
dock  tried. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  193 

Mr.  Conkling,  in  his  speech,  insinuates  dishonesty,  saying  this 
bureau  should  ' '  allow  the  War  Department  and  the  country  to  know 
precisely  what  has  become  of  the  twenty-five  million  and  odd  dollars 
which,  under  the  act  of  March  3,  1863,  went  to  its  credit. ' '  My  official 
report,  now  partly  in  the  hands  of  the  Public  Printer,  shows  in  detail 
the  disposition  of  every  dollar  of  this  money,  and  shows,  moreover,  a 
completeness  and  accuracy  in  accounts  that  is  not  surpassed,  if  it  is 
equalled,  by  any  bureau  under  the  Government,  and  I  hold  a  certificate 
from  the  Second  Comptroller  of  the  Treasury  that  all  my  accounts  re 
lating  to  this  fund  have  been  examined  and  found  correct.  Mr.  Conk- 
ling  speaks  of  this  bureau  allowing  the  War  Department  to  know,  &c. , 
as  if  they  were  separate  branches  of  the  Government.  My  bureau  is  a 
subordinate  branch  of  the  War  Department,  and  I  wish  here  to  point 
out  clearly  the  fact  that  my  business  has  been  conducted  under  the 
constant  supervision  and  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  those 
authorized  to  act  in  his  name.  It  ought  not  to  be  necessary  for  me  to 
remind  either  Mr.  Conkling  or  the  ' '  people  ' '  that  Mr.  Stanton  has 
never  been  unwilling  to  make  examinations  into  the  conduct  of  his 
subordinates,  nor  slow  to  act  upon  the  result  of  them.  This  of  itself  is 
a  sufficient  reply  to  Mr.  Conkling' s  abuse  of  me,  especially  as  it  is  a 
fact  that  every  request,  complaint,  or  accusation  of  any  importance 
made  by  him  to  or  affecting  this  bureau,  has  been  laid  before  the  Sec 
retary  of  War,  and  passed  upon  by  him.  It  is  true  that  the  result  has 
in  nearly  every  instance  been  unfavorable  to  Mr.  Coukling ;  and  assum 
ing  that  these  were  the  differences  or  quarrels  which  were  referred  to 
in  the  debate  as  those  in  which  Mr.  Conkling  came  out  *  *  second  best, ' ' 
he  asserted  what  was  not  true  when  he  denied  them. 

Mr.  Conkling  says  that  he  may  hereafter  inform  Congress  what 
number  of  all  the  men  who  received  bounty  reached  the  front,  inti 
mating  that  the  proportion  was  small.  I,  for  one,  should  be  glad  to 
obtain  that  information.  The  duty  of  sending  men  to  the  front  rested 
with  the  Adjutant  General  of  the  Army  and  not  with  me. 

He  also  hints  that  he  may  hereafter  make  a  damaging  expose  of  the 
operations  of  my  bureau.  Whatever  he  may  adduce  in  this  connection 
he  will  probably  not  be  able  to  disprove  that  it  raised  more  than  a 
million  men  for  the  Army,  which,  when  hostilities  ceased,  consisted, 
notwithstanding  all  the  losses,  of  one  million  five  hundred  and  sixteen 
men;  that  it  arrested  and  returned  to  the  service  over  seventy-six 
thousand  deserters,  and  that  it  raised  by  its  own  operations,  in  con 
formity  to  law,  over  twenty-six  million  dollars,  which  sum  has  been 
properly  disposed  of. 

That  there  were  frauds  in  my  branch  of  the  service  I  admit,  but 
that  they  prevailed  to  a  greater  degree  in  it  than  in  others,  or  that 


194 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


earnest  and  zealous  efforts  were  not  made  by  me  to  pursue,  correct,  and 
punish  them,  no  man  dare  have  the  hardihood  to  assert. 

And  I  will  here  state  that  the  fraud  or  loss  in  Government  funds 
under  my  bureau,  including  both  that  punished  and  that  unpunished, 
has  been  comparatively  small. 

The  frauds  and  malpractices  which  did  occur  were  almost  entirely 
in  connection  with  local  bounties,  which  could  not  be  controlled  by  the 
United  States,  and  which  corrupted  some  of  the  officers  of  this  bureau, 
but  more  of  the  people  at  large,  including  supervisors,  agents,  &c., 
selected  by  the  poople  to  disburse  the  funds  which  they  so  lavishly  be 
stowed. 

The  general  management  of  my  business  has  received  the  approval 
of  all  dispassionate  parties  who  have  had  an  opportunity  to  judge  of  it, 
including  the  late  President  and  that  superior  officer  to  whom  I  have 
been  directly  responsible,  whose  vigor  and  whose  capacity  and  oppor 
tunity  to  judge  are  beyond  dispute;  and  it  will  not  be  forgotten  that 
complaints  and  accusations  have  been  spread  with  great  industry  before 
the  high  officials  last  referred  to. 

I  have  been  at  all  times  amenable  to  the  severest  form  of  law — the 
military  code — liable  at  any  moment  to  summary  arrest,  court-martial, 
and  extreme  punishment  in  case  of  any  dereliction  of  official  duty.  No 
one  knew  or  knows  this  fact  better  than  Mr.  Conkling,  and  if,  while 
acting  as  judge  advocate,  under  the  extraordinary  inquisitorial  powers 
bestowed  upon  him  by  his  friend  Mr.  Dana,  he  came  into  the  possession 
of  any  fact  impugning  or  impeaching  my  integrity  as  a  public  officer, 
he  was  guilty  of  grave  public  wrong  and  unfaithfulness  if  he  did  not 
instantly  file  formal  charges  against  me  with  the  Secretary  of  War. 
He  can,  therefore,  only  escape  the  charge  of  deliberate  and  malignant 
falsehood  as  a  member  of  Congress  by  confessing  an  unpardonable  breach 
of  duty  as  judge  advocate.  He  held  both  offices  and  took  pay  for  both 
at  the  same  time ;  he  has  certainly  been  false  to  honor  in  one,  and  per 
haps,  as  the  sequel  may  show,  in  both. 

Copies  of  official  documents  substantiating  statements  herein  made 
are  subjoined. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  B.  FRY, 
Provost  Marshal  General. 
HON.  JAMES  G.  ELAINE, 

House  of  Representatives,   Washington,  D.  C. 

Mr.  Elaine.  I  do  not  ask  that  the  accompanying 
documents  shall  be  read.  I  only  ask  that  the  letter 
and  documents  be  printed. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY  CONTROVERSY.  195 

Mr.  Hoss.  I  move  that  ten  thousand  extra  copies 
be  printed. 

The  Speaker.  That  motion  will  be  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Printing. 

Mr.  Colliding.  I  ask  that  everything  be  read.  I 
enjoy  it  very  much. 

The  Clerk  read  as  follows : 

WAR  DEPARTMENT, 

Washington  City,  April  3,  1865. 

SIR:  I  am  instructed  by  the  Secretary  of  War  to  authorize  you  to 
investigate  all  cases  of  fraud  in  the  provost  marshal's  department  of 
the  western  division  of  New  York,  and  all  misdemeanors  connected 
with  recruiting.  You  will  from  time  to  time  make  report  to  this  De 
partment  of  the  progress  of  your  labors,  and  will  apply  for  any  special 
authority  for  which  you  may  have  occasion.  The  Judge  Advocate 
General  will  be  instructed  to  issue  to  you  an  appointment  as  special 
judge  advocate,  for  the  prosecution  of  any  cases  that  may  be  brought  to 
trial  before  a  military  tribunal.  You  will  also  appear  in  behalf  of  this 
Department  in  any  cases  that  it  may  be  deemed  more  expedient  to  bring 
before  the  civil  tribunals. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

C.  A.  DANA, 
Assistant  Secretary  of  War. 
Hon.  ROSCOE  CONKLING. 

WAR  DEPARTMENT, 

Washington  City,  April  3,  1865. 

Hon.  Roscoe  Conk  ling  having  been  appointed  by  the  Secretary  of 
War  to  investigate  transactions  connected  with  recruiting  in  the 
western  division  of  New  York,  all  telegraph  companies  and  operators 
are  respectfully  requested  to  afford  him  access  to  any  dispatches  which 
he  may  require  for  the  purpose  of  detecting  frauds  and  bringing  crim 
inals  to  trial. 

By  order  of  the  Secretary  of  War : 

C.  A.  DANA, 
Assistant  Secretary  of  War. 

WAR  DEPARTMENT, 

Washington  City,  April  3,  1865. 

Hon.  Roscoe  Conk  ling  having  been  appointed  by  the  Secretary  of 
War  to  investigate  transactions  connected  with  recruiting  in  the  western 


196 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FEY    CONTROVERSY. 


division  of  New  York,  all  provost  marshals  and  other  military  officers 
are  hereby  directed  to  give  him  free  access  to  all  their  official  records 
and  correspondence,  and  to  furnish  him  certified  copies  of  any  papers 
that  he  may  require. 

By  order  of  the  Secretary  of  War : 

C.  A.  DANA, 
Assistant  Secretary  of  War. 

WAR  DEPARTMENT, 

Washington  City,  December  21,  1864. 

GENERAL  :  I  have  the  honor  to  return  to  you  the  papers  in  the  case 
of  Captain  Richardson,  provost  marshal  twenty-first  district  New  York, 
and  respectfully  recommend  that  said  Richardson  be  at  once  arrested 
and  held  in  custody  for  trial  by  court-martial.  The  proofs  in  this  case 
disclose  a  reckless  persistency  in  fraudulent  practices  that  not  only  de 
mands  his  arrest  and  trial,  but  also  a  complete  renovation  in  the  office 
of  said  district.  *  *  * 

I  am,  General,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

L.  C.  TURNER, 

Judge  Advocate. 
Brigadier  General  JAMES  B.  FRY, 

Provost  Marshal  General. 

Washington,  D.  C.,  March  31,  1865. 

SIR  :  In  obedience  to  paragraph  seventy  eight,  Special  Orders  No. 
130.  Adjutant  General's  Office,  current  series,  and  to  your  verbal  in 
structions,  I  made  an  inspection  of  the  board  of  enrolment  for  the 
twenty-first  district,  State  of  New  York,  and  have  the  honor  to  report 
as  follows  : 

The  prominent  men  of  that  district,  the  supervisors  of  its  various 
towns  and  people,  generally  united  in  a  determination  to  fill  its  quota 
under  last  call  without  sending  citizens  of  the  district.  To  this  end  a 
bounty  of  $725  was  provided  for  every  recruit,  and  each  supervisor  was 
authorized  to  procure  men.  If  recruits  could  be  had  for  less  than  the 
above-mentioned  sum,  the  difference  accrued  to  the  supervisor.  The 
board  of  supervisors  thus  became  a  board  of  bounty  brokers.  Contracts 
were  made  with  a  notorious  bounty  broker,  Aaron  Richardson,  for  a 
supply  of  men. 

This  machinery  for  filling  the  quota  being  properly  constructed  with 
great  consideration  for  the  district,  and  regardless  of  the  rights  of  the 
Government,  there  was  found  only  one  difficulty  in  its  practical  opera 
tion. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  197 

An  order  from  the  acting  assistant  provost  marshal  general  of  the 
western  division  of  New  York  required  a  deposit  with  officers  of  the 
United  States  of  five-eighths  of  the  bounty  paid  recruits.  This  was 
objectionable  to  the  class  of  men  furnished  by  the  supervisors  and  Con 
tractor  Richardson,  who  very  greatly  preferred  taking  care  of  their  own 
funds;  and  therefore  recruiting  did  not  progress  rapidly.  Some  ingen 
ious  men  of  the  district  devised  a  cunning  scheme  to  obviate  this  diffi 
culty.  Each  recruit  was  instructed  to  say  to  the  provost  marshal  that 
he  desired  no  local  bounty ;  that  he  went  from  better  motives,  and  that 
Government  provided  as  large  bounty  as  he  cared  to  accept. 

The  provost  marshal  admired  the  disinterestedness  of  the  recruit 
and  mustered  him  in.  Men  were  now  obtained  rapidly.  Bounty 
jumpers  came  to  Uticaby  car-loads,  and,  to  use  their  own  slang,  the  en 
rolling  board  of  the  twenty-first  district  became  "  a  perfect  walk." 
These  facts  are  notorious  throughout  the  western  division  of  New  York, 
and  are  amply  proven  by  papers  referred  to  me  from  Provost  Marshal 
General's  Office  and  herewith  returned. 

During  the  administration  of  Captain  Crandall,  provost  marshal 
twenty-first  district,  from  24th  January  to  14th  March,  1865,  the  records 
of  his  office  show  that  there  were  enlisted  forty-one  men  who  refused 
all  bounty,  two  hundred  and  sixty-nine  who  accepted  fifty  dollars, 
thirty-five  who  accepted  from  one  hundred  to  two  hundred  dollars,  and 
one  hundred  and  twenty-three  who  received  more  than  three  hundred 
dollars. 

In  all,  four  hundred  and  sixty-eight  were  mustered  in  by  Captain 
Crandall,  of  whom  Major  Haddock,  acting  assistant  provost  marshal 
general,  western  division  of  New  York,  reports  that  fifty-five  per  cent, 
deserted  before  starting  to  the  field.  Had  Captain  Crandall  retained  in 
his  hands  five-eighths  of  the  bounty  received  by  the  two  hundred  and 
fifty  deserters,  there  would  have  accrued  to  the  Government  $100,000. 
The  amount  paid  over  by  him  was  very  small,  but  I  was  unable  to  ascer 
tain  it  exactly. 

Upon  the  13th  March  the  enrolling  board  of  this  district  was  sus 
pended  and  Major  Beadle,  third  regiment  Veteran  Reserve  Corps,  re 
lieved  Captain  Crandall.  Major  Beadle  states  that  he  found  the 
affairs  of  the  office  in  confusion.  His  statement  is  appended,  marked 
"Exhibit  A.*' 

Captain  Crandall  admitted  that  he  had  in  possession  $26, 753  belong 
ing  to  recruits  and  bounty  brokers,  but  refused  to  turn  it  over  for  rea 
sons  given  in  his  communication  to  Provost  Marshal  General,  dated 
llth  March,  1865,  herewith  returned. 

It  is  proper  to  state,  in  relation  to  the  violation  of  Major  Haddock's 


198 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


order  to  retain  five  eighths  of  recruits'  bounty,  that  in  the  first  seven 
teen  cases,  Captain  Crandall  explained  why  he  did  it  and  Major  Had 
dock  was  satisfied  with  the  explanation.  Upon  this  Captain  Crandall 
ba^ed  his  subsequent  action.  The  correspondence  is  annexed  marked 
4 '«  Exhibit  B. ' ' 

Aside  from  this  transparent  scheme  to  defraud  the  Government  by 
filling  the  quota  of  their  district  with  credits  instead  of  men,  there  is 
nothing  objectionable  in  the  official  conduct  of  the  board.  Some  com 
munications  upon  file  in  the  Provost  Marshal  General's  Office  allege 
that  the  surgeon  passed  unfit  men.  But  I  am  disposed  to  regard  these 
cases  as  incident  to  haste  and  overwork,  and  not  as  showing  criminality 
upon  the  surgeon's  part. 

The  character  of  the  surgeon  (Babcock)  has  been  above  reproach,  as 
also  that  of  Captain  Crandall.  Commissioner  Munroe  has  not  enjoyed 
so  fully  the  confidence  of  his  fellow-citizens. 

I  do  not  regard  the  conduct  of  the  board  as  legally  guilty,  but  mor 
ally  they  have  perpetrated  a  most  glaring  and  inexcusable  fraud  upon 
the  Government  they  were  sworn  to  serve.  They  quieted  their  con 
science  by  casuistry,  and  regulated  their  actions  by  the  counsel  of  un 
scrupulous  legal  advisers.  Misled  by  sophistry,  by  an  undue  desire  to 
serve  well  their  friends,  and  by  constant  pressure  from  cowardly  neigh 
bors  dreading  a  draft,  they  did  this  great  wrong  to  their  country,  dis 
graced  themselves  and  brought  upon  their  district  a  widespread  reputa 
tion  for  rascality. 

I  respectfully  recommend  that  every  member  of  the  board  of  enrol 
ment  for  the  twenty-first  district  of  New  York  be  dismissed  the  service, 
and  that  the  money  in  possession  of  Captain  Crandall  be  seized.  And 
because  of  the  disgraceful  prejudice  existing  among  the  demoralized 
people  of  that  district  against  filling  their  quota  with  decent  men,  thus 
preventing  one  of  their  own  citizens  from  doing  his  duty  to  his  country 
as  well  as  his  county,  that  an  officer  of  the  Army  be  detailed  as  provost 
marshal  of  that  district.  I  have  the  honor  to  report  further,  that  inci" 
dent  to  the  inspection  of  the  twenty-first  district  facts  in  relation  to  the 
administration  of  Major  John  A.  Haddock,  acting  assistant  provost 
marshal  general  for  western  division  of  New  York,  were  educed  which 
led  me  to  the  conviction  that  he  is  unfit  for  the  position  he  holds. 

Men  of  undoubted  character  charge  him  with  being  insolent  and 
abusive  in  discharging  his  duties,  and  grossly  immoral;  that  he  is  in 
collusion  with  bounty  brokers,  and  prostitutes  his  official  position  to 
personal  ends.  For  proof  of  these  charges  I  refer,  at  Utica,  to  the  post 
master  and  Hon.  R.  Conkling;  at  Elmira,  to  the  mayor,  J.  I.  Nix, 
Postmaster  D.  F.  Pickering.  Provost  Marshal  J.  S.  Wright,  Colonel  B. 


CONKLING    AND    ELAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  199 

F.  Tracy,  commanding  post;  Captain  Eugene  Divin,  and  Peter  A.  La 
France;  also  to  Colonel  L.  C.  Baker. 

Very  respectfully  submitted, 

E.   II.  LUDINGTON, 

Ma/or,  Assistant  Inspector  General. 
Brevet  Brigadier  General  J.  A.  HARDIE, 

Inspector  General  United  States  Army. 
Respectfully  referred  to  the  Provost  Marshal  General, 

JAMES  A.  HARDIE, 

Inspector  General. 
WAR  DEPARTMENT,  April  1,  1865. 

WAR  DEPARTMENT, 

PROVOST  MARSHAL  GENERAL'S  BUREAU, 

Washington,  D.C.,  April  1,  1865. 
Respectfully  submitted  to  the  honorable  Secretary  of  War: 

1.  I  recommend  that  Major  J.  A.  Haddock  be  relieved  from  duty 
as  acting  assistant  provost  marshal  general  of  western  division  of  New 
York,  and  that  his  conduct  be  further  investigated,  and  that  Major  S. 
B.    Hayman,  United  States  Army,    be  detailed  for  that  post.     Major 
Hayman  is  on  duty  in  Indiana  and  can  be  spared  for  the  purpose. 

2.  That  the  appointments  of  the  members  of  the  board  of  enrolment 
in  the  twenty-first  district  of  New  York  be  revoked. 

JAMES  B.  FRY, 
Provost  Marshal  General. 
Presented  to  Secretary  of  War  April  1,  1865,  and  approved  by  him. 

JAMES  B.  FRY, 
Provost  Marshal  General. 

HEADQUARTERS  DRAFT  RENDEZVOUS, 

Elm.ira,  New  York,  February  20,  1865. 

MAJOR:  The  twenty-first  district,  New  York,  is  evading  General 
Order  305.  Men  from  that  district  bring  with  them  to  general  rendez 
vous  from  twenty  to  twenty-two  dollars  each.  The  supervisors  have 
taken  some  action  with  a  view  to  evade  the  order.  The  district  is 
filling  its  quota  with  bounty  jumpers.  Fifteen  deserters  from  Auburn 
in  one  squad. 

This  is  giving  to  this  district  an  undue  advantage  over  the  other 
districts.  There  is  now  a  rush  of  bounty  jumpers  for  Utica.  Major 
Haddock,  acting  assistant  provost  marshal  general,  declares  himself 


200 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


powerless  to  correct  this  evil.  I  inclose  telegrams  from  him  to  provost 
marshal  at  Utica,  which  show  his  views  of  the  subject.  General  Order 
No.  305  is  worthless  and  should  be  revoked  unless  the  recruits  are  re 
quired  to  bring  their  money  to  general  rendezvous.  Unless  this  is 
stopped  at  once  other  districts  will  be  compelled,  in  self -defense,  to  re 
sort  to  the  same  dodge,  and  one  of  the  be^t  orders  ever  issued  become  a 
nullity. 

I  suggest  that  commanding  officers  of  rendezvous  be  instructed  to 
refuse  to  receipt  for  any  recruit  and  substitute  from  this  district  unless 
he  brings  with  him  his  local  bounty  or  the  amount  paid  him  for  be 
coming  a  substitute. 

I  am,  Major,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant. 

B.  F.  TRACY, 

Colonel  \21th  U.  8.  C.  T.,  Commanding  Rcndezrou*. 
Major  H.  CLAY  WOOD, 

Assistant  Adjutant  General,   Washington,  I).  C. 

HEADQUARTERS,   CAMP  SEWARD, 

Auburn,  New  York,  March  4,  1865. 

SIR:  I  have  the  honor  to  lay  before  you  the  following  items  in  re 
gard  to  the  provost  marshal's  office  at  Utica.  I  learned  from  two  ap 
parently  reputable  men  from  Utica  that  the  business  at  that  office  is 
conducted  in  the  following  manner :  the  supervisors  of  the  county  met 
and  resolved  to  pay  a  county  bounty  of  $600 ;  they  met  again  and  re 
solved  to  add  $125  to  the  $600,  making  $725  local  bounty  to  be  paid  by 
the  county ;  they  then  resolved  themselves  into  a  recruiting  committee 
to  furnish  the  quota  of  the  county ;  they  get  the  men  at  as  low  a  figure 
as  they  can  and  charge  the  county  the  full  amount  of  $725.  The  pro 
vost  marshal  and  the  examining  surgeon  seem  to  be  but  the  creatures 
of  these  supervisors.  Men  rotten  with  venereal  disease,  totally  unfit  for 
any  duty,  are  passed  by  the  surgeon  and  sent  here  for  duty.  One  old 
man,  just  discharged  for  disability,  having  the  piles  badly,  before  he 
got  to  his  home  was  grabbed  by  these  Utica  harpies,  put  through  by 
the  officials,  with,  as  he  alleges,  but  $190,  somebody  pocketing  the 
balance,  and  sent  here.  He  is  utterly  worthless  as  a  soldier.  Nine- 
tenths  of  the  recruits  sent  here  from  that  office  are  the  most  worthless 
set  of  scoundrels  you  ever  put  your  eyes  upon. 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  L.  LOTT, 

First  Lieutenant  19th  V.  R.   C.,  Commanding  Camp. 
Major  JOHN  A.  HADDOCK, 

Acting  Assistant  Procost  Marshal  General, 

Western  Division  New  York. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


201 


HEADQUARTERS 

192D   REGIMENT   NEW   YORK   VOLUNTEERS, 

Albany,  February  4,  1805. 

COLONEL:  I  have  the  honor  most  respectfully  to  protest  against  the 
reception  of  recruits  for  the  one  hundred  and  ninety  second  regiment 
New  York  volunteers,  who  are  mustered  by  the  provost  marshal  at 
Utica.  The  men  who  have  been  received  at  the  Veteran  Reserve  corps 
barracks  from  that  city  are,  without  doubt ,  ' '  bounty  jumpers, ' '  and 
should  not  have  been  mustered  by  any  intelligent  mustering  officer. 
Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

N.  G.  AXTELL, 

Colonel  lQ2d  Regiment  New  York  Volunteers. 
Lieutenant  Colonel  F.  TOWNSEND, 
Superintendent  Recruiting  Service. 

WAR   DEPARTMENT, 

PROVOST  MARSHAL  GENERAL'S  BUREAU, 

Washington,  D.  C.,  Nwemlw  6,  1865. 

SIR:  The  instructions  of  this  bureau  required  provost  marshals  to 
turn  over  to  the  nearest  disbursing  officer  all  funds  which  came  into 
their  hands.  The  bureau  having  been  informed  that  P.  B.  Crandall, 
then  provost  marshal  of  the  Utica  district,  New  York,  had  in  his  pos 
session  a  large  amount  of  money  and  bonds,  and  that  he  had  not  turned 
over  the  same  or  reported  the  fact  to  this  office,  he  was  ordered  on  the 
4th  of  March,  1865,  to  turn  over  the  money,  which  he  refused  to  do. 

On  the  10th  of  the  same  month  the  order  was  repeated,  and  again 
disobeyed,  he  stating  as  a  reason  that  he  had  been  advised  by  counsel 
of  high  standing  that  he  would  be  held  personally  responsible  for  the 
money. 

On  the  following  day  the  order  was  repeated,  and  again  disobeyed, 
with  the  statement  that  Ward  Hunt,  Esq.,  his  counsel,  advised  him 
that  he  could  not  safely  comply  with  the  order. 

On  the  30th  of  March  he  was  again  ordered  by  telegraph  from  this 
office  to  turn  over  the  money  at  once,  and  on  the  1st  day  of  April  fol 
lowing  he  answered  by  telegraph  that  he  would  immediately  comply. 

It  subsequently  appeared  that  instead  of  turning  over  the  whole 
amount,  $33,995.10,  which  he  had  previously  stated  was  in  his  pos 
session,  he  had  only  turned  over  $8,095. 

On  the  6th  day  of  April  his  attention  was  called  to  that  fact. 

To  this  a  reply,  dated  April  13,  was  received  on  the  21st  day  of 
April,  in  which  I  was  informed  that  the  bonds  in  question  ($20,000) 
had  been  seized  by  a  writ  of  replevin  at  the  suit  of  Richardson,  and  in 
which  letter  Captain  Crandall  stated  as  follows : 


202  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

* '  I  respectfully  request  the  Government  to  take  charge  of  the  suit 
and  relieve  me  from  responsibility  in  regard  to  it.  In  the  event,  how 
ever,  that  no  charge  is  taken  of  it  by  the  Government,  I  have  placed  it 
under  the  direction  of  Messrs.  Hunt,  Waterman  &  Hunt,  who  will 
appear  as  my  attorneys  in  the  case. ' ' 

On  the  9th  day  of  March,  1865,  Captain  Crandall  was  suspended 
from  office,  and  on  the  31st  of  May,  1865,  his  services  as  provost  mar 
shal  were  discontinued. 

No  further  information  on  the  subject  of  the  $20,000  in  county 
bonds  was  received  from  Captain  Crandall  until  the  letter  dated  Sep 
tember  15,  a  copy  of  which  is  transmitted  by  Hon.  Roscoe  Conkling. 

I  had  never  approved  of  Captain  Crandall' s  course  in  relation  to 
turning  in  these  moneys,  nor  of  the  intercourse  between  him  and 
Aaron  Richardson,  the  bounty  broker,  by  which  he,  Crandall,  came  in 
possession  of  $20,000  county  bonds,  now  under  discussion.  Having, 
however,  taken  these  bonds,  Captain  Crandall  was  ordered  to  turn 
them  over  to  a  designated  disbursing  officer  of  the  Government,  which 
he  refused  to  do.  This  refusal  resulted  in  his  suspension  from  duty,  a 
correspondence,  and  a  renewal  of  the  orders  to  turn  in  the  money,  in 
answer  to  which  renewed  orders  the  fact  appeared  that  during  the  cor 
respondence  and  delay  occasioned  by  Captain  Crandall's  disobedience, 
the  money  was  taken  out  of  his  hands  by  a  writ  of  replevin  at  the 
suit  of  Aaron  Richardson,  the  bounty  broker.  It  will  be  observed  that 
in  his  first  report  of  April  13,  on  the  subject,  Captain  Crandall  asks 
the  Government  to  take  charge  of  the  suit  and  relieve  him  from  the 
responsibility  in  regard  to  it,  but  says:  "  In  the  event,  however,  that 
no  charge  is  taken  of  it  by  the  Government,  I  have  placed  it  under  the 
direction  of  Messrs.  Hunt,  Waterman  &  Hunt,  who  will  appear  as  my 
counsel. ' ' 

When  I  received  this  letter,  I  did  not  think,  and  do  not  now,  that 
the  Government  was  called  upon  to  relieve  him  from  the  responsibility 
in  this  matter,  and  as  he  contemplated  and  had  provided  for  the  con 
tingency  of  the  Government  not  assuming  the  suit,  and  had  employed 
counsel,  and  placed  it  under  their  direction,  no  action  from  this  office 
was  necessary,  and  I  therefore  took  none. 

In  his -letter  of  September  15,  renewing  the  subject,  he  says,  "  Un 
less  the  Department,  therefore,  gives  instructions  to  the  attorneys  for 
the  defense,  Hunt,  Waterman  &  Hunt,  Utica,  New  York,  and  assumes 
the  responsibility  of  the  suit,  the  defense  will  be  abandoned  by  me,  and 
Mr.  Richardson  will  be  allowed  to  take  a  judgment  for  the  recovery  of 
his  bonds  and  to  obtain  the  possession  of  the  same. " 

I  did  not  then,  and  do  not  now,  consider  that  the  threat  to  abandon 
the  suit,  contained  in  this  quotation,  called  for  any  action  from  this  office. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  203 

Mr.  Crandall  saw  fit  as  a  Government  officer  to  receive  these  bonds  from 
a  bounty  broker;  he  refused  to  obey  the  orders  of  this  bureau  as  to  the 
disposition  of  them,  and  permitted  them  to  pass  out  of  his  hands,  and 
become  the  subject  of  a  civil  suit ;  he  assumed  the  suit  and  employed 
counsel  to  conduct  it,  the  same  counsel,  it  may  be  remarked,  under 
whose  advice  he  refuse!  to  obey  the  orders  of  this  bureau  to  turn  in  the 
funds.  He  now  (assuming  that  the  within  letter  speaks  for  him)  again 
asks  the  Government  to  assume  the  suit,  that  is,  pay  the  lawyers'  bills, 
Mr.  Crandall  having  employed  the  lawyers  and  placed  the  case  under 
their  direction.  I  do  not  advise  this  course ;  on  the  contrary,  I  recom 
mend  that  the  responsibility  which  Mr.  Crandall  assumed  in  this  mat 
ter  rest  with  him.  If  he  adopts  the  course  proposed  in  his  letter  of 
September  15,  to  abandon  the  suit  and  let  Richardson  have  the  bonds,  it 
will  not,  I  presume,  invalidate  the  right  to  proceed  against  him  for  the 
amount  if  the  Government  has  any  good  claim  to  it.  I  do  not  deem  the 
insinuation  made  in  the  letter  of  Mr.  Conkling,  that  an  opportunity  is 
sought  to  affront  or  punish  the  Union  people  of  his  district,  worthy  of 
denial  or  comment. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  B.  FRY, 
Provost  Marshal  General. 
Hon.  EDWIN  M.  STANTON,  Secretary  of  War. 

Before  the  Clerk  had  concluded  the  reading  of 
the  above  documents, 

Mr.  Bingham  asked  whether  the  further  reading 
of  the  documents  could  not  be  dispensed  with. 

Mr.  Conkling.  I  do  not  wonder  at  the  suggestion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Ohio,  but  the  gentleman  will 
see  there  is  a  good  deal  of  this  which  is  personal  to 
me,  and  whatever  there  is  of  that  sort  I  want  to  hear. 
I  do  not  want  to  burden  the  House. 

Mr.  Smith.  I  suppose  the  entire  matter  read 
there  is  official,  and  consists  of  communications  between 
that  Department  and  the  gentleman  from  New  York, 
with  which  he  is  familiar.  It  can  be  printed. 

Mr.  Conkling.  I  will  not  trespass  upon  the  attention 
of  the  House  to  have  it  read.  It  is  all  new  to  me,  and 


204  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

gentlemen  will  appreciate  my  desire  in  having  it  read. 

The  Speaker.     The  reading  will  soon  be  finished. 

The  paper  was  then  read  through. 

Mr.  Conkling.  I  appreciate  the  indifference  with 
which  the  House  must  listen  to  an  issue  such  as  this, 
in  its  design  on  one  side  so  personal  and  individual  in 
its  character ;  and  at  this  hour  of  the  day  I  shall  not 
presume  so  far  upon  the  good-nature  or  the  sense  of 
justice  of  my  fellow-members  as  to  ask  them  for 
any  great  length  of  time  to  hear  an  explanation  or 
a  statement  the  main  object  of  which  must  seem  to 
be  to  repel  a  purely  personal  attack.  I  can,  however, 
assure  the  House  with  the  uttermost  sincerity  that 
for  everything  in  this  most  extraordinary  communi 
cation  savoring  of  imputation  upon  me  I  am  consoled, 
ay,  doubly  consoled,  by  the  fact  that  I  shall  become 
the  humble  instrument  of  initiating  an  investigation 
much  needed  and  good  for  the  people  of  the  whole 
country,  wholesome  and  cleansing  to  the  future. 

Before  I  sit  down,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  shall  yield  to 
some  gentleman  to  move,  and  I  know  the  House  will 
order  it,  a  committee  to  investigate  a  subject  which 
has  now  ceased  to  be  individual  and  become  public,  a 
subject  which  concerns  the  rights  and  interests  not 
only  of  that  great  procession  of  mourners  and  cripples 
which  war  has  left  in  our  land,  not  only  of  the  tax 
payers  of  the  country,  but  also  to  those  in  every  walk 
and  avenue  of  life,  because  all  have  a  deep  interest  in 
preserving  the  purity  of  the  Government  in  all  its  de 
partments. 

Of  course,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  shall  have  no  part  in 
that  committee.  I  shall  not  move  it,  as  it  would  not 


CONKLING    AND    ELAINE  FRY    CONTROVERSY.  205 

be  proper  for  me  to  move  it,  but  a  committee  will,  I 
trust,  be  appointed  to  bring  fairly  to  tlie  public  knowl 
edge  some  of  the  matters  whereof  I  shall  briefly  speak. 
Now,  Sir,  asking  the  indulgence  of  the  House  for 
a  space,  I  wish  to  take  up  some  of  the  matters  in  this 
communication  of  General  Fry  as  I  was  able  to  note 
them  in  the  reading,  which  point  directly,  and  which 
are  intended  to  point  injuriously,  to  me. 

Mi'.  Speaker,  I  did  not  file  in  the  War  Department 
long  ago  information  in  reference  to  widespread  frauds 
in  recruiting  in  the  State  of  New  York  in  which  ex 
tensive  combinations  of  active  men  were  banded  to 
gether  in  office  and  out ;  I  did  not  act  as  counsel  for 
the  Government  in  unearthing  and  breaking  up  these 
combinations  and  exposing  the  actors;  I  did  not  de 
vote  upward  of  four  months  of  patient  labor  in  an  at 
tempt  to  arrest  the  enormous  robberies  and  wrongs 
which  prevailed  in  the  State  of  New  York,  nor  did  I 
make  an  assault  upon  this  bureau  here,  without  count 
ing  the  cost  and  knowing  the  consequences. 

I  was  prepared  for  all  the  calumnies  arid  all  the 
responsibility  that  he  must  take  who  strikes  at  the 
thieves,  marauders,  and  miscreants  who  have  fattened 
upon  the  necessities  and  needs  of  their  country.  I 
knew  the  resources  and  desperation  of  the  men  who 
have  made  wealth  out  of  the  public  woe.  I  under 
stood  perfectly  that  I  must  be  prepared  for  all  comers 
of  this  description,  and  it  was  to  this  that  I  referred 
in  the  avowal  of  my  readiness  to  maintain  my  allega 
tions  of  wrong  in  the  Provost  Marshal  Bureau  at  all 
times  and  places.  I  will  not  say  "elsewhere,"  for 
fear  of  unsettling  the  nerves  of  some  who  hear  me ; 


206  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

but  avoiding  the  expression  "  elsewhere,"  which  is  so 
dreadful,  I  say  that  I  did  not  forget,  nor  did  I  desire 
to  avoid,  the  responsibility  of  being  asked  to  make 
good  by  proof  the  accusations  I  made  ;  of  course  I  ex 
pected,  by  dispatches  to  newspapers  instigated  by 
General  Fry  and  his  satellites,  by  every  mode,  secret 
and  open,  of  influencing  the  public  judgment,  and 
diverting  attention  from  the  objects  of  accusation,  to 
be  vilified ;  and  I  hoped  to  be  permitted,  if  not  invited, 
to  point  out  to  some  authority  competent  to  receive  and 
act  upon  it  the  evidence  on  which  I  relied.  That 
opportunity  will  be  afforded  if  a  committee  shall  be 
raised ;  and  now  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  three  or 
four  things  contained  in  the  letter  of  General  Fry,  and 
I  will  not  go  further  on  this  occasion. 

It  is  stated  by  this  officer,  as  the  House  has  heard, 
that  upon  a  certain  occasion  I  telegraphed  to  the 
Secretary  of  Wai',  in  the  language  of  the  communica 
tion,  as  I  caught  it,  in  order  "  to  make  a  case  for  my 
self  ;  "  that  is,  to  procure  my  own  professional  em 
ployment.  It  was  said  that  my  dispatch  was  to  the 
effect  that  the  provost  marshal  of  my  district  wanted 
advice.  Let  me  state  that  transaction,  all  of  it  being- 
matter  of  record  in  the  War  Department,  so  that  it 
can  be  unmistakably  verified  or  challenged. 

An  alleged  deserter  was  arrested  by  the  provost 
marshal  of  my  district  without  the  process  of  any 
court.  A  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  sued  out  of  the 
supreme  court  of  the  State  of  New  York.  Acting 
upon  a  decision  which  had  been  made  years  before  in 
a  western  case,  and  an  opinion,  or  rather  a  charge, 
given  a  grand  jury  by  Mr.  Justice  Nelson,  of  the 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  207 

S  :prerae  Court  of  the  United  States,  the  officer  made 
a  return,  in  substance,  that  although  no  process  of  law 
had  been  issued  for  the  arrest,  he,  as  a  military  officer 
of  flie  United  States,  held  his  prisoner  and  refused  to 
obey  the  mandate  of  the  writ.  An  attachment  was 
issued  and  we  were  on  the  point  of  collision  between  the 
civil  and  the  military  authorities.  I  telegraphed  the 
Secretary  of  War  nothing  except  the  facts,  and  my 
recommendation  that  he  should  direct  the  officer  what 
to  do.  There  was  need  of  this.  It  was  in  1863;  a 
time  in  the  State  of  New  York  when  my  colleagues 
well  remember  that  it  would  only  have  been  necessary 
that  a  collision  should  have  occurred  between  the  civil 
authority  of  the  State  and  the  military  authority  of  the 
nation  upon  the  issue  of  the  habeas  corpus  and  the 
effect  would  have  been  like  drawing  a  match  in  a 
magazine  of  powder. 

The  Secretary  of  War  telegraphed  that  the  pro 
vost  marshal  must  hold  his  prisoner  at  all  events.  I 
do  not  now  profess  to  give  the  precise  language,  but 
it  was  that  he  must  hold  him  and  stand  by  his  posi 
tion,  and  the  dispatch  requested  me  to  appear  as  his 
counsel,  to  take  an  appeal,  and  to  argue  the  question 
between  the  military  authorities  of  the  United  States 
and  the  judicial  authority  of  New  York. 

I  did  appear ;  I  did  argue  the  case,  and  although 
that  is  neither  here  nor  there,  the  decision  was  reversed, 
and  reversed  by  one  of  the  purest  patriots  and  one  of 
the  most  honored  judges  that  ever  graced  New  York's 
bench,  and  the  decision  stands  as  a  monument  of  learn 
ing  raised  at  a  most  critical  and  disordered  time. 

An  appeal  was  taken  to  the  court  in  bane.      Arid 


208  CONKL1NG    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

there  again  I  was  requested  by  the  Secretary  of  War, 
and  I  think  the  Attorney  General  upon  the  applica 
tion  of  the  district  attorney  of  the  United  States,  to 
act  as  counsel,  and  I  did  so.  The  decision  was  not  re 
versed,  and  it  performed  a  very  useful  part  at  a  very 
important  juncture. 

That,  Mr.  Speaker,  was  my  connection  with  that 
transaction,  and  that  was  all  of  it ;  and  upon  this,  an 
officer  at  the  head  of  a  bureau  has  dared  to  send  here 
a  letter  on  pretense  of  defending  himself,  containing  a 
groundless  libel,  deliberately  written  to  stab  the  repu 
tation  of  a  Representative  in  retaliation  for  discharging 
his  duty  here. 

I  do  not  mean  to  be  led  into  much  zeal  over  the 
matter  ;  but  it  is  a  bad  plan  for  a  man  unjustly  accused 
to  resort  to  this  sort  of  counter  assault. 

Again,  this  writer  states  that  I  was  appointed,  if 
I  understand  it  aright,  without  the  knowledge  or 
assent  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  but  by  the  Assistant 
Secretary  of  War,  Mr.  Dana,  judge  advocate  for  a  cer 
tain  purpose.  Let  me  state  briefly  that  transaction. 
During  the  period  referred  to,  or  before,  detectives 
were  sent  by  the  War  Department  into  the  State  of 
New  York,  to  endeavor  to  ferret  out,  if  possible,  and 
put  a  stop  to  frauds  in  recruiting.  These  detectives, 
it  seems,  had  been  directed  by  the  authorities  to  apply 
to  me,  among  others,  for  advice  and  information  as  to 
persons  in  various  localities  whose  statements  could  be 
relied  on.  They  came,  several  of  them,  and  repeatedly, 
to  me.  They  came  in  the  night  as  well  as  in  the  day, 
and  communicated  to  me  various  fragments  and  bits  of 
evidence  which  they  collected,  showing  rather  the  ex- 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


209 


tent  of  the  evil,  and  the   difficulty  of  getting  at  the 
bottom  of  it  than  anything  else. 

Weeks  elapsed,  and  very  little  information  was 
gathered  or,  as  they  expressed  it,  although  they  could 
get  moral  evidence  enough,  they  could  get  no  legal  evi 
dence.  At  length  I  promised  that  when  I  should  be 
relieved  of  engagements  in  the  courts  which  were  then 
pressing,  I  would  investigate,  as  far  as  I  could,  various 
things  which  they  and  I  suspected.  I  did  so  ;  and  I 
sent  to  the  War  Department  such  information  as  I 
gathered,  and  some  very  pregnant  disclosures  which 
were  made.  Having  done  this,  acting  as  a  citizen,  I 
supposed  my  connection  with  it  was  to  cease.  But 
afterward — I  cannot  state  the  date  precisely;  it  was  in 
April,  a  year  ago— I  received  in  the  city  of  Syracuse, 
fifty-three  miles  from  my  home,  while  I  was  there  pro 
fessionally  engaged,  an  urgent  telegram  from  the 
Secretary  of  War,  asking  me  to  come  to  Washington. 
As  soon  as  I  could  release  myself  I  took  the  cars,  and, 
riding  night  and  day,  reached  here  in  ignorance  of  the 
purpose  for  which  I  was  summoned.  Arriving  here 
in  the  morning,  I  went  to  the  War  Department,  and 
there  had  an  interview  with  Mr.  Stanton,  the  Secretary 
of  War.  He  explained  his  sending  for  me,  and  stated 
to  me  certain  facts,  and  I  stated  to  him  other  facts 
relative  to  the  subject  of  frauds  and  maladministra 
tion  ;  and  he  proposed  that,  as  counsel  for  the  Govern 
ment,  I  should  investigate  and  prosecute,  until  the 
enormities  discovered  should  be  ferreted  out  and  the 
guilty  convicted.  I  at  first  declined,  for  reasons  con 
nected  with  my  other  professional  engagements,  know 
ing  that  preparatory  to  leaving  home  for  the  present 


210  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-PRY    CONTROVERSY. 

session  of  Congress  I   should  need  all  rny  time  and 
strength  in  my  ordinary  business. 

In  my  place,  I  suggested  to  the  Secretary  a  gen 
tleman,  whose  name  I  need  not  mention  here,  but  it  is 
one  of  the  best  and  purest  names  in  the  State  of  New 
York,  a  gentleman  of  very  high  standing  at  the  bar,  and 
whom  I  hoped  might  be  able  to  give  the  matter  his 
attention,  and  I  advised  that  to  him  rather  than  to  me 
the  retainer  should  be  given.  The  answer  of  the  Sec 
retary  was  in  effect,  No,  I  know  you,  and  I  want  you 
to  do  this,  believing  you  will  do  it  with  activity  and 
vigor,  or  some  like  remark  of  confidence.  I  took  some 
little  time  to  consider  it,  debating  with  myself.  Upon 
reflection,  I  assented,  and  the  Secretary  himself  directed 
in  person  and  in  my  presence  to  be  drawn  up  and 
presented  to  me  a  retainer,  which  I  believe  has  been 
read  among  these  papers.  That,  sir,  was  the  origin  of 
that  engagement,  and  of  that  transaction.  Yet,  the 
author  of  the  remarkable  production  on  the  table  ven 
tures  to  insinuate,  if  he  does  not  state,  that  I  sought 
this  employment,  and  obtained  it,  not  from  the  Secre 
tary  of  War,  but  from  Mr.  Dana,  and  that  without 
the  authority  or  assent,  and  I  think  without  the  knowl 
edge,  of  the  Secretary.  I  went  to  my  home,  disregard 
ing  and  neglecting,  as  some  persons  who  now  hear  me 
know,  professional  employments  vastly  more  profitable 
to  me,  and  devoted  more  than  four  months  of  most  un 
tiring,  faithful  labor  to  this  investigation.  I  threw  up 
numerous  other  retainers  and  gave  undivided  attention 
to  this.  I  gave  to  it  an  effort  which,  although  anybody 
else  might  have  made  it,  and  which  did  me  no  credit 
in  the  world,  I  stop  to  say,  brought  into  the  Treasury 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  211 

of  the  United  States  several  hundred  thousand  dollars, 
and  checked  a  most  heady  tide  of  swindling. 

The  investigation  led,  among  other  things,  to  the 
trial  of  this  assistant  provost  marshal  general,  of  whom 
General  Fry  says  so  much,  and  yet  so  little ;  a  trial 
which  alone  consumed  about  eight  weeks,  at  places 
distant  from  my  home.  When  at  last  it  was  over,  I  de 
clined  to  go  further,  thinking  my  poor  share  had  been 
done,  and  finding  it  destructive  to  my  regular  business 
to  engage  in  trials  so  interminable  and  absorbing,  and 
I  made  report  to  the  War  Department  and  to  the  dis 
trict  attorney  of  the  United  States  of  the  results  which 
had  been  reached. 

Some  time  after  this  I  received,  as  other  acting 
counsel  do,  I  believe,  a  suggestion  that  I  should 
present  my  bill. 

I  made  out  and  sent  to  the  War  Department  an 
account  of  the  precise  sum  I  had  actually  advanced  in 
money,  as  travelling  and  other  necessary  expenses, 
rendering  the  amount  to  a  farthing,  and  I  made  out 
no  other  account  and  no  other  charge.  But  I  stated 
to  the  Secretary  that  I  preferred  not  to  do  so,  but  to 
leave  him  to  fix  the  amount ;  that  the  service  was  un 
usual  to  me,  and  that  he  better  than  I  could  judge  of 
its  value.  I  declined  to  fix  any  charge,  but  left  it  to 
him  to  fix  such  sum,  whatever  it  might  be,  as  he  deemed 
the  service  worth;  this  I  deemed  at  least  fair  to  the 
Government,  more  than  fair,  for  had  I  wished  extrava 
gant  pay  I  should  have  taken  another  course. 

In  reply  I  received  from  the  Secretary  of  War  a 
letter,  in  which  he  stated  his  opinion,  and  his  opinion 
as  a  lawyer  and  as  Secretary  of  War  is  a  tolerably 


212  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

good  one.  Perhaps  it  will  not  be  considered  a  remark 
too  much  aside,  considering  the  intimations  we  have 
heard,  if  I  pause,  and-  render  to  the  Secretary  of  War 
my  personal  thanks,  and  my  testimony  to  the  thanks 
which  I  believe  the  nation  owes  him  for  the  integrity, 
the  courage,  and  the  manhood  which  he  has  given  at 
the  expense  of  his  health  to  the  American  people  dur 
ing  the  darkest  passage  in  their  life.  The  Secretary 
of  War,  in  reply  to  my  letter,  wrote  to  me,  saying  that 
he  deemed  $3,000  a  moderate  sum  for  the  labor  which 
had  been  performed,  and  if  that  should  be  satisfactory 
to  me,  it  would  be  very  satisfactory  to  him.  I  re 
turned  an  answer  that  it  was  entirely  satisfactory,  as  I 
may  say  any  other  sum  he  might  have  fixed  would 
have  been,  as  I  did  not  consider  it  an  occasion  out  of 
which  profit  was  to  be  made,  or  in  which  even  such  a 
charge  might  be  made  as  any  lawyer  fit  to  conduct  such 
a  prosecution  would  have  expected  from  a  private 
client. 

Mr.  Hoss.  If  it  will  not  discompose  the  gentle 
man  too  much,  I  would  ask  him  to  state  whether  that 
was  during  the  time  he  was  drawing  pay  as  a  member 
of  Congress. 

Mr.  ConMing.  I  do  not  quite  understand  the 
pertinence  of  the  question  of  the  gentleman  from 
Illinois,  [Mr.  Hoss].  But  I  will  endeavor  to  enlighten 
him.  He  probably  knows,  for  I  presume  that  infor 
mation  has  extended  to  him,  that  the  term  of  members 
of  Congress  commences  on  the  4th  of  March.  And  as 
the  retainer  which  I  have  spoken  of  was  in  April, 
which,  I  will  inform  the  gentleman,  is  a  month  that 
comes  after  March  in  the  calendar,  he  will  very  likely 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  213 

be  able,  by  the  rule  of  three,  or  by  some  other  rule 
with  which  he  is  familiar,  to  cipher  out  whether  I  was 
a  member  of  Congress  at  the  time  or  not.  I  suppose  the 
gentleman  put  his  question  all  in  the  way  of  good 
nature  ;  and  I  give  my  explanation  to  him  in  the  same 
way. 

I  should  be  sorry  to  suppose  that  the  member 
from  Illinois,  or  any  other  member  of  this  House— in 
deed,  I  should  be  sorry  as  an  American  to  suppose 
that  the  standard  of  intelligence  anywhere  in  the 
country  is  so  low,  that  any  human  being,  unless  it  be 
that  distinguished  mathematician  and  warrior,  Provost 
Marshal  General  Fry,  believes  there  is  the  slightest 
impropriety  in  a  man  who  is  a  member  of  Congress 
practising  his  profession  as  counsel  in  courts,  or  accept 
ing  from  the  Government  of  the  United  States  or  from 
any  other  client  a  retainer  for  such  professional 
services.  It  would  be  very  extraordinary,  indeed,  if 
some  distinguished  gentlemen,  whom  I  will  not  name, 
who  have  recently  performed  most  conspicuous  profes 
sional  services  for  Government  while  they  were  mem 
bers  of  Congress,  had  subjected  themselves  to  the 
criticism  of  the  gentleman  from  Illinois,  or  of  anybody 
whatever,  always  excepting,  of  course,  Provost  Marshal 
General  Fry. 

So  much  for  that  part  of  this  bundle  of  papers 
given  to  a  pretended  statement  of  the  circumstance  of 
my  acting  as  counsel  for  the  United  States. 

I  come  to  the  next  point  which  occurs  to  me. 

There  is  a  statement,  if  I  apprehended  it  aright, 
that  some  effort  was  made  by  me  to  have  "  conceal 
ment  "  — T  think  that  was  the  word — in  regard  to  the 


214 


GONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


twenty-first  congressional  district.  That  is  mere  as 
sertion.  No  circumstances  are  stated  upon  which  it 
could  be  founded,  therefore  I  cannot  dissect  it,  but  I 
pronounce  the  statement  utterly  and  absolutely  ground 
less — nothing  whatever  of  truth  can  be  found  in  it. 
On  the  contrary,  in  the  investigation  which  took  place 
before  the  court-martial  to  which  reference  has  been 
made,  everything  that  could  be  investigated  pertaining 
to  the  twenty-first  congressional  district  was  investi 
gated.  The  matter  of  recruiting  there  was  held  up, 
that  the  light  might  shine  through  and  through  it ; 
and  nothing  in  that  statement  amazes  me  more  than 
that  the  Provost  Marshal  General  or  anybody  else 
should  dare,  even  in  so  daring  a  document,  to  put  on 
record  an  assertion  so  utterly  baseless. 

So  far  I  have  noticed  only  some  of  the  more  far 
fetched  libels  in  these  papers.  I  come  now  to  the 
(question  which  was  made  by  the  member  who  caused 
this  letter  to  be  read,  the  pretense  that  it  in  some  way 
bolstered  up  the  assertions  made  by  him  the  other  day. 
This  letter  was  read  in  part,  we  were  told,  to  show 
that  I  was  not  warranted  in  pronouncing  untrue  the 
statement  that  I  had  had  personal  "  quarrels  "  with 
the  Provost  Marshal  General.  I  beg  leave,  Mr. 
Speaker,  to  remind  gentlemen  of  the  precise  statement 
which  on  that  occasion  I  pronounced  untrue.  The 
member  from  Maine  said — I  read  from  the  Globe— 

"  I  do  not  suppose  that  the  House  of  Representatives  care  anything 
more  than  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  about  the  great  recruit 
ing  frauds  of  New  York  or  the  quarrels  of  the  gentleman  from  New 
York  with  General  Fry,  in  which  quarrels,  it  is  generally  understood, 
the  gentleman  came  out  second  best  at  the  War  Department. ' ' 

I  will  not  stop  to  read   further  (although  I  pro- 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-PRY    CONTROVERSY.  215 

pose  to  have  all  I  have  marked  inserted  in  my  remarks) 
the  various  forms  in  which  the  statement  was  made 
that  I  had  had  personal  quarrels  with  Provost  Mar 
shal  General  Fry. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  read  the 
whole.  If  he  will  show  me  the  word  "  personal  "  in 
the  speech  to  which  he  is  replying,  I  will  reward  him. 
He  cannot  do  it.  He  is  putting  his  own  interpreta 
tion  upon  it.  Let  the  gentleman  read  all  that  he  is 
going  to  print. 

Mr.  Conkling.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  hope  the  active 
member  from  Maine  will  preserve  himself  as  free  from 
agitation  as  possible. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I  demand  that  whatever  the  gentle 
man  puts  in  the  Globe  he  shall  read. 

The  Speaker.  Does  the  gentleman  from  New 
York  yield  to  the  gentleman  from  Maine  ? 

Mr.  Conkling.  I  am  not  asked  to  yield.  The 
Chair  will  see  that  all  this  interruption  is  in  defiance 
of  the  proprieties  of  debate.  I  have  no  objection  to 
the  member  from  Maine  being  heard,  however,  at  any 
length  he  pleases. 

Mr.  Blaine.     I  rise  to  a  point  of  order. 

The  Speaker.  The  gentleman  will  state  his  point 
of  order. 

Mr.  Blaine.  My  point  of  order  is  that  the  gen 
tleman  from  New  York  has  no  right  to  insert  in  the 
Globe  what  is  not  read  either  by  himself  or  by  the 
Clerk.  I  object  to  his  doing  so. 

The  Speaker.  The  gentleman  has  the  right  to  ob 
ject  to  its  being  printed  in  the  Globe  if  it  is  not  read. 

Mr.  Conlding.     Mr.  Speaker,  this  is  a  little  epi- 


216  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-PRY    CONTROVERSY. 

socle,  I  suppose,  for  the  amusement  and  diversion  of 
the  House.  It  is  quite  unnecessary.  The  member 
had  better  be  quiet ;  I  am  entirely  disposed  to  have 
the  whole  passage  read  ;  and  I  will  ask  to  have  it 
read.  I  intended  to  send  it  to  the  Globe  reporters  for 
insertion.  I  supposed  the  member  knew  what  had 
already  been  printed  in  the  Globe  as  coming  from 
him. 

Mr.  JZoss.  Will  the  gentleman  from  New  York 
yield  to  me  a  moment  ? 

Mr.  ConMing.     For  what  purpose  ? 

Mr.  Ross.  I  desire  to  ask  the  gentleman  whether 
he  was  drawing  pay  as  judge  advocate  at  the  same 
time  when  he  was  receiving  $3,000  a  year  from  the 
Government  as  a  member  of  Congress. 

Mr.  ConMing.  I  will  answer  the  gentleman's 
question,  Mr.  Speaker ;  and  I  ask  the  Clerk  to  suspend 
for  one  moment  the  reading  till  I  do  so,  because 
nothing  interests  me  in  connection  with  this  matter 
more  than  the  laudable  curiosity  of  the  gentleman 
from  Illinois  [Mr.  Ross\. 

I  beg,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  assure  the  gentleman  "  con 
fidentially,"  as  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr. 
Stevens']  would  say,  and  I  hope  he  will  regard  it  as  a 
confidential  communication,  that  I  never  did  receive 
salary  as  judge  advocate  during  the  period  he  refers 
to,  or  during  any  other  period ;  not  one  penny.  In 
deed,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  found  myself  very  unexpectedly 
elevated  when  I  saw  the  announcement  in  some  paper 
that  this  retainer  which  the  Government  had  given  me 
made  me  acting  judge  advocate  for  the  purpose  of 
trying  a  case.  It  was  merely  an  employment  as  coun- 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


217 


sel;  and  the  counsel  fee  which  was  paid  is,  I  beg  to 
assure  the  gentleman,  the  only  compensation  that  I 
ever  received  for  my  services.  I  never  received  any 
pay  as  judge  advocate  during  any  period  whatever. 

I  now  ask  the  Clerk  to  read  the  remarks  which  I 
have  sent  to  the  desk;  all  that  are  marked.  They  are 
the  remarks  of  the  member  from  Maine. 

The  Clerk  read  as  follows : 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  suppose  that  the  House  of  Representatives 
care  anything  more  than  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  about  the 
great  recruiting  frauds  in  New  York,  or  the  quarrels  of  the  gentleman 
from  New  York  with  General  Fry,  in  which  quarrels  it  is  generally 
understood  the  gentleman  came  out  second  best  at  the  War  Department. 
I  do  not  think  that  such  questions  ought  to  be  obtruded  here. 

Though  the  gentleman  from  New  York  has  had  some  difference 
with  General  Fry,  yet  I  take  pleasure  in  saying  that,  as  I  believe,  there 
is  not  in  the  American  Army  a  more  honorable  and  high-toned  officer 
than  General  Fry.  That  officer,  I  doubt  not,  is  ready  to  meet  the  gen 
tleman  from  New  York  or  anybody  else  in  the  proper  forum.  I  must 
say  that  I  do  not  think  it  is  any  very  creditable  proceeding  for  the  gen 
tleman  from  New  York  here  in  this  place  to  traduce  General  Fry  as  a 
military  officer  when  he  has  no  opportunity  to  be  heard.  I  do  not  con 
sider  such  a  proceeding  the  highest  specimen  of  chivalry  that  could  be 
exhibited. 

The  gentleman  from  New  York  has  had  his  issues  with  General 
Fry  at  the  War  Department.  They  have  been  adjudicated  upon  by  the 
Secretary  of  War ;  and  I  leave  it  for  the  gentleman  to  say  whether  he 
came  out  first  best,  I  do  not  know  the  particulars ;  the  gentleman  can 
inform  the  House.  All  I  have  to  say  is — and  in  this  I  believe  I  speak 
the  sentiment  of  a  majority  of  the  members  of  this  House — that  James 
B.  Fry  is  a  most  efficient  officer,  a  high-toned  gentleman,  whose  char 
acter  is  without  spot  or  blemish  ;  a  gentleman  who  stands  second  to  no 
officer  in  the  American  Army ;  and  he  is  ready  to  meet  the  gentleman 
from  New  York  and  all  other  accusers  anywhere  and  everywhere.  And, 
sir,  when  I  hear  the  gentleman  from  New  York  rehearse  in  this  house, 
as  an  impeachment  of  General  Fry,  all  the  details  of  the  recruiting 
frauds  in  New  York,  which  General  Fry  used  his  best  energies  to  repress 
with  iron  hand,  a  sense  of  indignation  carries  me  beyond  my  personal 
strength  and  compels  me  to  denounce  such  a  course  of  proceeding. 


218  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

Mr.  Ulaine.  The  word  "  personal "  does  not 
occur  there. 

Mr.  Conkling.  The  House  will  observe  I  did  not 
say  the  word  "  personal  "  did  occur.  But  that  is  not 
here  nor  there.  All  gentlemen,  all  who  have  the 
appreciation  or  instincts  of  gentlemen,  see  the  point 
of  this  passage.  It  was  the  assertion  that  I  had  had 
"  quarrels  "  with  Provost  Marshal  Fry,  repeating  that 
word  more  than  once,  and  using  other  forms  of  expres 
sion  ;  and  that  I  had  had  "  quarrels  "  with  General 
Fry  in  which  "  quarrels  "  I  had  been  worsted,  in  which 
"  quarrels  "  I  had  been  put  down  by  the  Secretary  of 
War ;  in  which  the  Secretary  of  War  had  taken  sides 
against  me.  These  were  the  points  :  first,  that  there 
had  occurred  between  General  Fry  and  myself  "  quar 
rels,"  and  second,  that  in  those  "  quarrels  "  I  had  been 
worsted,  and  worsted  by  the  Secretary  of  War. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  there  any  shadow  or  founda 
tion  for  that  ?  I  mean,  taking  the  communication  of 
the  Provost  Marshal  General  as  the  only  evidence  up 
on  the  subject.  What  does  he  say  ?  I  had  stated,  as 
the  House  will  remember,  before  the  member  from 
Maine  injected  his  statement — I  will  read  that — I  had 
previously  stated  all  about  having  been  employed  to 
prosecute  General  Fry's  friend  and  assistant.  I  said  : 

I  was  employed  by  the  Government  to  prosecute  some  of  the  frauds 
to  which  I  have  referred  ;  and  I  tried  this  assistant  provost  marshal 
general,  who  had  been  justified  in  all  the  outrages  he  committed,  and 
in  all  the  acts  by  which  millions  were  stolen  from  the  people  of  New 
York ;  who  was  jussified  by  his  superior  officer  down  to  the  time  when 
the  sentence  was  published,  and  afterward,  I  understand. 

The  member  from  Maine,  then,  did  not  mean  this 
prosecution  by  his  statement.  Now,  what  does  the 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  219 

Provost  Marshal  say  to  give  color  to  the  statement 
that,  independent  of  this,  anything  had  taken  place 
which  will  help  out  the  assertion  of  "  quarrels,"  and 
that  I  was  worsted  ?  What  does  he  state  ?  That  Cap 
tain  Richardson,  a  provost  marshal  in  my  district,  was 
removed.  So  he  was.  He  was  removed  without  notice 
and  without  charges.  He  was  removed,  as  it  turned 
out,  on  the  report  of  Haddock  and  the  accusation  of  a 
man  who  is  himself  to  be  tried  in  a  few  weeks  for  such 
frauds  as  he  charged  upon  Captain  Richardson.  The 
facts  were  in  part  made  known  to  me,  and,  in  common 
with  some  of  the  first  citizens  of  my  district,  I  repre 
sented  to  the  War  Department  and  to  the  President, 
if  that  was  the  form  of  the  petition,  that  this  man  had 
been  removed  without  notice  and  on  secret  informa 
tion.  We  thought  he  should  be  heard  ;  that  there 
should  be  an  investigation  in  regard  to  it.  That  is 
the  beginning  and  end  of  all  I  had  to  say  or  to  do  with 
the  removal  of  Captain  Joseph  P.  Richardson.  I  think 
it  will  be  hardly  said  that  was  a  quarrel  with  General 
Fry. 

The  next  statement  is  that  Captain  Peter  B.  Cran- 
dall  was  appointed  provost  marshal  of  my  district  arid 
was  afterward  removed.  So  he  was,  and  I  take  occa 
sion  to  say,  in  the  face  of  the  imputations  put  upon 
Captain  Crandall  by  General  Fry,  if  ever  I  looked  in. 
to  the  face  of  an  honest  man,  P.  B.  Crandall  is  honest. 
I  take  it  upon  myself  to  state  that  a  more  honest  man 
never  broke  bread  than  this  man  who  was  trodden  un 
der  foot  by  bounty  jumpers  and  thieves  because  he 
would  not  submit  to  them  in  violation  of  his  duty  and 
of  the  law  of  the  land,  There  is  a  place  where  Peter 


220 


OONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


B.  Crandall  is  known,  where  he  has  been  long  known  ; 
and  fortunately  for  me,  also,  in  that  same  place,  the 
twenty-first  district  of  New  York,  inhabited  as  it  is  by 
as  brave,  as  generous,  as  patriotic  people  as  were  ever 
represented  on  this  floor,  I  am  known  and  have  been 
known  for  twenty  years. 

The  people  with  whom  I  live,  among  whom  I  ex 
pect  to  die,  know,  better  than  General  Fry  can  tell 
them,  whether  the  man  who  dared  to  pen  the  libels 
we  have  heard  read  deserves  to  be  sustained  and  com 
mended,  or  whether  he  deserves  to  be  gibbeted  at  the 
cross-roads  of  common  contempt. 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  was  saying  that  Peter  B. 
Crandall  was  appointed  provost  marshal.  He  was  ap 
pointed  upon  the  recommendation  of  the  most  honored 
and  trusted  of  our  citizens  without  my  having  any 
part  in  his  selection.  I  had  no  part  or  lot  in  it.  It 
was  made  entirely  by  others.  The  person  whom  they 
selected  was  chosen  because  his  integrity  was  and  is 
beyond  all  question.  He  was  removed  after  bounty 
brokers  had  threatened  him  that  if  he  did  not  submit 
to  their  behests  he  would  be  removed,  and  after  he 
had  defied  them  to  bring  the  machinery  of  this  great 
Government  to  bear  upon  him  for  doing  his  duty.  He 
was  removed  at  the  very  time  when  they  predicted  his 
downfall,  and  I  say  here  that  he  was  removed  because 
he  did  his  duty  and  for  no  other  reason  under  heaven, 
whether  General  Fry  knows  it  or  riot.  Had  he  been 
rascal  enough  to  comply  with  illicit  requests,  he 
would  never  have  been  touched  by  the  hands  which 
struck  him  down. 

I  joined   with   various  of  the  citizens  of  my  dis- 


CONKLING    AND    ELAINE- FRY    CONTROVERSY.  221 

trict  in  representing  to  the  Secretary  of  War  that  a 
mistake  had  been  made  or  a  wrong  had  been  done  in 
the  case  of  this  man  ;  that  if  anybody  was  honest  he 
was,  and  that  it  was  doing  great  violence  to  the  public 
service  and  to  the  people  of  that  district  to  strike 
down  a  man  who  had  been  selected  by  some  of  its 
best  citizens  because  he  was  in  point  of  character 
above  reproach. 

That  is  all  I  had  to  do  with  it.  I  united  with 
others  in  signing  these  representations.  Was  that 
having  a  personal  quarrel  with  General  Fry  ? 

One  thing  more  is  referred  to  in  connection  with 
Captain  Crandall.  He  had  taken  and  held,  and  perse 
vered  in  holding,  $20,000  of  bonds  which  were  claimed 
of  him  by  a  bounty  broker.  He  said  they  belonged 
to  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  because  the 
man  had  deserted  for  whom  these  bonds  were  hy 
pothecated,  and  he  would  never  surrender  them  to  the 
claimant  until  he  was  compelled  to  do  it  by  law.  He 
was  sued,  and  I  wrote  several  times  to  the  War  De 
partment  recommending  the  Secretary  of  War  to  look 
into  the  facts  himself  and  see  whether  the  bonds 
might  not  be  held,  as  I  thought  they  should  be  held, 
by  the  Government.  This  is  all  I  had  to  do  with  that. 

The  case  was  subsequently  tried.  I  had  nothing 
to  do  with  it.  The  counsel  was  a  gentleman  whose 
name  appears  in  the  papers  read,  a  citizen  honored  in 
every  walk  of  life,  and  Captain  Crandall  was  sus 
tained  in  holding  the  bonds,  the  court  deciding  that  he 
did  what  should  have  been  done,  and  that  he  ought 
not  to  have  delivered  them  up.  That  is  the  entire  of 
that  transaction. 


222  CONKLING    AND    ELAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

Having  disposed  of  these  things  which  General 
Fry  recounts,  I  ask  the  House  to  observe  that  in  no 
aspect,  by  no  stretch,  do  they  show  that  I  quarrelled 
with  General  Fry ;  at  most  they  only  show  that 
recommendations  made  by  me  to  the  War  Depart 
ment  roused  his  hostility. 

Having  referred  to  all  transactions  connecting  me 
with  him  to  which  he  refers,  I  come  now  to  the  one 
single  interview  which  he  says  took  place  between  us. 
It  was  upon  the  occasion  which  I  referred  to  when  I 
came  here  in  response  to  a  telegram  from  the  Secre 
tary  of  War. 

The  Provost  Marshal  General  was  sent  for  to 
come  into  the  room  of  the  Assistant  Secretary  of  War 
during  that  day  to  give  information,  and  he  did  come, 
and  informed  me  of  various  things,  among  others, 
that  Major  Haddock  was  an  estimable  and  honorable 
man ;  he  denied  utterly  that  there  was  anything  to  be 
said  against  him,  although  he  had  then  made  the 
recommendation  which  he  parades,  and  for  which  he 
takes  credit  now,  that  he  should  be  suspended  ;  that 
he  was  satisfied  Haddock  was  honest,  and  would  back 
him  anywhere.  He  said  further  that  the  people  of 
my  district,  all  of  them,  as  he  understood  it,  were  cow 
ards,  drunkards,  and  sneaks  ;  that  that  was  his  infor 
mation  ;  that  there  was  not,  he  believed,  an  honest 
man  in  that  district,  and  if  one  could  be  found  and 
set  to  discharging  the  duties  of  provost  marshal,  as 
soon  as  it  was  known  by  others,  they  would  imme 
diately  debauch  him. 

I  was  somewhat  astounded  at  language  like  this, 
but  I  had  no  quarrel  with  General  Fry.  I  was  taught 


CONKLING    AND    BLA1NE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


223 


somewliat  early  in  life  that  while  a  man  should  be 
careful  in  his  associations,  he  should  be  choice  in  his 
fighting ;  and  having  received  my  impression  of  this 
man  then  and  previously,  I  chose  to  have  no  con 
troversy  with  him.  Nor  does  he  pretend  that  I  had 
any.  I  did  not  call  upon  him  I  neither  sought  nor 
avoided  him.  I  requested  no  interview  with  him. 
There  was  nothing  of  the  interview  except  that  he 
was  sent  for  to  give  certain  information.  He  gave  his 
information,  he  made  the  remarks  I  stated,  and  some 
other  remarks,  and  retired  upon  his  laurels. 

The  fact,  then,  is  precisely  this  :  neither  in  con 
versation  with  General  Fry  did  I  ever  have  any  quar 
rel  with  him,  nor  by  letter  or  correspondence  did  I 
ever  have  any  quarrels  with  him  ;  and  no  way  what 
ever  have  I  ever  had  a  quarrel,  in  any  definition  of 
that  term,  with  this  Provost  Marshal  General. 

As  I  said  the  other  day,  I  prosecuted  his  assistant 
and  friend.  I  knew  then  that  I  incurred  his  ire  in 
doing  it.  I  recommended  to  the  War  Department 
from  time  to  time  such  things  as  I  deemed  it  my  duty 
to  recommend.  This  I  well  know  angered  him,  but  I 
believe  I  never  had  occasion  to  make  to  the  Secretary 
of  War  a  recommendation  relative  to  matters  coming 
before  him,  which  was  not  promptly  responded  to,  and 
promptly  approved.  Unless  I  have  forgotten  some 
thing,  I  believe  that  throughout  this  prosecution  I 
never  addressed  to  the  Secretary  of  War  a  single 
recommendation  in  regard  to  it  which  he  did  not  ap 
prove,  and  which  did  not  meet  with  his  sanction. 

The  House  will  see,  therefore,  with  how  much  truth 
it  was  that  a  statement  was  made  here,  first  that  I  had 


224  CONKL1NG    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

had  quarrels  with  a  man  whom  I  never  saw  but  once, 
and  with  whom  I  never  quarrelled  at  all ;  and  in  the 
second  place,  that  in  those  quarrels  I  had  been  worsted, 
and  worsted  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  worsted  by 
that  distinguished  officer,'  whose  friendship  and  confi 
dence  it  has  always  been  my  privilege  to  enjoy,  and 
who  never  on  any  occasion  did  toward  me  anything 
calculated  to  awaken  any  feelings  but  those  of  friend 
ship  and  respect,  and  who  has  my  thanks  for  many 
acts  of  courtesy  and  kindness. 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  have  already  gone  far  beyond 
my  intention  in  rising,  and  I  trust  that  those  who 
have  listened  to  me  so  attentively  will  pardon  some 
thing  to  the  extraordinary  incident  which  has  been 
witnessed,  of  the  head  of  a  bureau,  a  clerk  in  the 
AVar  Department,  sending  here  to  be  read  such  a  pile 
of  rubbish  as  that,  a  personal  assault  upon  a  member 
of  this  House,  under  the  pretense  of  vindicating  him 
self  in  some  way  or  other. 

This  officer  longs  for  vindication,  not  with  regard 
to  these  insignificant  matters  which  pertain  to  me  per 
sonally,  but  he  longs  for  vindication  with  regard  to 
those  public  matters  which  concern  him  in  his  re 
sponsibility  to  the  people  of  the  country.  And  I  beg 
now  to  say  that,  if  a  committee  shall  be  raised  by  this 
House  to  investigate  the  doings  of  the  Provost  Mar 
shal  General's  Bureau,  I  will  undertake  to  make  good 
my  assertion,  that  in  the  western  division  of  New 
York,  composing  a  large  portion  of  that  great  State, 
this  bureau,  as  it  was  administered,  was  one  carnival 
of  corrupt  disorder.  I  will  endeavor  to  make  good 
that  statement ;  and  then  the  public  shall  know 


CONKLING    AND    ELAINE  FRY    CONTROVERSY.  225 

whether  the  head  of  the  bureau  was  a  man  incapable 
of  administration — a  man  incapable  of  seeing  the  dif 
ference  between  honest  men  and  thieves — or  whether 
it  was  administered  by  a  man  who  had  the  capacity 
to  do  it,  and  who,  but  for  the  want  of  another  quality, 
would  have  performed  its  duties  well. 

And  now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  ask  my  colleague 
from  the  St.  Lawrence  district  [Mr.  IIulburcT\,  whose 
position  in  this  House  and  in  the  country  and  in  the 
State  of  New  York  will  be  a  sufficient  guarantee  for  the 
probity  and  the  ability  which  will  be  brought  to  the 
service — I  ask  him  to  move  that  a  committee  be  ap 
pointed  by  the  House  to  investigate  the  doings  of  the 
Provost  Marshal  General's  Bureau,  and  let  us  see 
whether  a  man,  however  humble  he  may  be,  who  rises 
here  to  denounce  what  he  knows  to  be  a  public  wrong, 
is  to  be  shuffled  off  by  newspaper  effects,  or  effects  to 
be  produced  by  sending  here  to  be  read  such  a  com 
munication  as  lies  before  us.  If  this  man  and  his 
trusted  agents  are  innocent  he  and  they  should  have 
a  full  and  thorough  investigation  of  all  the  practices 
of  which  they  stand  accused. 

I  now  yield  the  floor  to  my  colleague  for  the  pur 
pose  I  have  indicated. 

Mr.  Hulburd.  I  presume  I  shall  meet  the  sense 
of  the  House  when  I  say  that  it  has  probably  de 
voted  as  much  time  as  it  ought  to  do  to  this  matter 
between  rny  colleague,  the  gentleman  from  Maine, 
and  the  Provost  Marshal  General.  I  propose  to  send 
to  the  Chair  a  resolution  asking  for  the  appointment 
of  a  select  Committee  of  five,  because  I  deem  the  mat 
ter  so  very  grave  that  it  is  due  to  my  colleague,  due 


226  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

to  the  Provost  Marshal  General,  and  due  to  the  coun 
try  that  the  subject  shall  be  further  investigated. 
And  in  view  of  the  complimentary  remarks  which  my 
colleague  has  made,  I  am  confirmed  in  the  design  of 
putting  in  a  disclaimer,  which  I  had  intended  to  do, 
and  asking  the  Chair,  if  the  House  shall  order  this 
committee,  not  to  place  me  upon  it,  as  parliamentary 
courtesy  might  otherwise  seem  to  require.  I  have  a 
sufficient  reason  for  it  in  the  fact  that  the  House  has 
referred  for  investigation  to  the  Committee  on  Public 
Expenditures,  of  which  I  am  chairman,  various  im 
portant  matters  connected  with  custom  houses,  and  the 
internal  revenue  service  at  Boston  and  elsewhere ;  and 
I  feel  that  we  shall  have  as  much  as  we  can  possibly 
do  to  carry  out  that  resolution. 

Mr.  Tliayer.  I  rise  to  a  point  of  order.  I  do  not 
think  the  indulgence  granted  by  the  House  extended 
this  far.  The  gentleman  from  Maine  [Mr.  Blaine\ 
asked  leave  of  the  House  to  have  a  certain  letter  read 
from  General  Fry.  Leave  was  granted,  with  the  tacit 
understanding  that  the  gentleman  from  New  York 
[Mr.  Gonkling]  should  have  leave  to  reply.  That  has 
been  done.  Now,  I  do  not  think  this  matter  should 
take  up  any  further  time  of  the  members  of  this 
House,  either  in  this  House  or  in  committees.  And 
if  I  have  the  right,  I  shall  object. 

The  Speaker.  The  Chair  overrules  the  point  of 
order.  The  ruling  has  always  been  that  when  the 
House  has  permitted  a  personal  explanation  to  be 
made,  whatever  legitimately  or  naturally  grows  out  of 
it,  in  the  opinion  of  the  majority  of  the  House,  is  in 
order.  The  Chair,  of  course,  has  no  knowledge  of 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  227 

what  the  resolution  is,  except  from  the  remarks  of  the 
gentleman  from  New  York  [Mr.  Hulburd~\ ;  but  he 
supposes  it  relates  to  the  very  question  which  has 
been  brought  in  controversy  between  the  gentleman 
from  New  York  [Mr.  Corikling\  and  the  gentleman 
from  Maine  [Mr.  Blaine\. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I  hope  the  gentleman  from  Penn 
sylvania  [Mr.  lhayer']  will  withdraw  his  objection. 

Mr.  Thayer.  Where  a  gentleman  asks  by  way  of 
personal  explanation  to  have  a  paper  read,  with  the 
understanding  that  another  gentleman  should  be  al 
lowed  to  make  a  similar  personal  explanation,  is  it  in 
order  for  any  member  of  the  House  to  introduce  busi 
ness,  by  resolution  or  otherwise,  if  it  relates  to  the  sub 
ject-matter  of  the  personal  explanation  ? 

The  Speaker.  If  it  relates  to  that  subject  it  is  in 
order.  Therefore  the  gentleman  from  Illinois  [Mr. 
Ko8S\  was  in  order  when  he  submitted  the  motion, 
which  went  to  the  Committee  on  Printing  under  the 
law,  that  ten  thousand  extra  copies  of  the  communi 
cation  from  General  Fry  be  printed  for  the  use  of  this 
House. 

The  resolution  of  Mr.  Hulburd  was  read  as  fol 
lows  : 

Resolved,  That  a  select  committee  of  five  members  of  this  House 
be  appointed  to  investigate  the  statements  and  charges  made  by  Hon. 
Roscoe  Conkling  in  his  place  last  week  against  Provost  Marshal  Gen 
eral  Fry,  whether  any  frauds  have  been  perpetrated  in  his  office  in  con 
nection  with  recruiting  service ;  also,  to  examine  into  the  statements 
made  by  General  Fry  in  his  communication  to  Hon.  Mr.  Blaine,  read 
in  the  House  this  day ;  with  power  to  send  for  persons  and  papers. 

Mr.  Conkling.  I  suggest  to  my  colleague  [Mr. 
Hulburd]  to  modify  his  resolution  so  as  to  provide 


228  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

for  the  investigation  of  any  charges  made  against  Pro 
vost  Marshal  General  Fry  and  his  bureau. 

Mr.  JRoss.  Might  it  not  be  well  to  enlarge  the 
powers  of  the  committee  so  that  they  can  investigate 
whether  the  gentleman  from  New  York  [Mr.  Qwik- 
ling\  has  received  more  pay  than  he  was  entitled  to 
receive  ? 

Mr.  ConMing.  I  should  like  to  have  that  done. 
I  hope  the  committee  will  report  on  that  whether  it 
is  embraced  in  the  resolution  or  not. 

Mr.  Hulburd.  That  is  embraced  in  the  resolu 
tion  now,  it  being  one  of  the  statements  contained  in 
the  letter  of  General  Fry. 

Mr.  Ross.     That  will  do,  then. 

The  question  was  upon  agreeing  to  the  resolution 
of  Mr.  Hulburd. 

Mr.  Elaine.  I  do  not  know  that  I  have  anything 
to  say,  and  I  shall  not  take  very  long  to  say  it.  I  do 
not  happen  to  possess  the  volubility  of  the  gentleman 
from  the  Utica  district  [Mr.  OonMing],  It  took  him 
thirty  minutes  the  other  day  to  explain  that  an  alter 
ation  in  the  reporter's  notes  for  the  Globe  was  no  alter 
ation  at  all ;  and  I  do  not  think  he  convinced  the 
House  after  all.  And  it  has  taken  him  an  hour  to 
day  to  explain  that  while  he  and  General  Fry  have 
been  at  swords'  points  for  a  year,  there  has  been  no 
difficulty  at  all  between  them.  He  has  said  that  Gen 
eral  Fry  is  of  no  consequence,  that  he  is  a  mere  clerk 
in  the  War  Department.  Yet  he  is  a  very  sensitive 
clerk,  and  when  he  has  been  accused  of  all  sorts  of 
fraud,  he  should  have  a  little  chance  to  be  heard. 

Now,    one    single  word.      The   gentleman    from 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  229 

New  York  [Mr.  ConTcling]  has  attempted  to  pass  off 
his  appearance  in  this  case  as  simply  the  appearance 
of  counsel.  I  want  to  read  again  for  the  information 
of  the  House  the  appointment  under  which  the  gen 
tleman  from  New  York  appeared  as  the  prosecutor  on 
the  part  of  the  government.  It  is  as  follows  : 

WAR  DEPARTMENT, 

Washington  City,  April  3,  1865. 

SIR  :  I  am  instructed  by  the  Secretary  of  War  to  authorize  you  to 
investigate  all  cases  of  fraud  in  the  provost  marshal's  department  of 
the  western  division  of  New  York,  and  all  misdemeanors  connected 
with  recruiting.  You  will  from  time  to  time  make  report  to  this  De 
partment  of  the  progress  of  your  labors,  and  will  apply  for  any  special 
authority  for  which  you  may  have  occasion.  The  Judge  Advocate  Gen 
eral  will  be  instructed  to  issue  to  you  an  appointment  as  special  judge 
advocate,  for  the  prosecution  of  any  cases  that  may  be  brought  to  trial 
before  a  military  tribunal.  You  will  also  appear  in  behalf  of  this  De 
partment  in  any  cases  that  it  may  be  deemed  more  expedient  to  bring 
before  the  civil  tribunals. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

C.  A.  DANA, 

Assistant  Secretary  of  War. 
Hon.  ROSCOE  CONKLING. 

Now,  sir,  I  find  in  Brightly's  Digest,  page  821, 

section  fortv-six,  that — 

«/ 

"  No  person  who  holds  or  shall  hold  any  office  under  the  Govern 
ment  of  the  United  States  whose  salary  or  annual  compensation  shall 
amount  to  the  sum  of  $2,500,  shall  receive  compensation  for  discharg 
ing  the  duties  of  any  other  office." 

Now,  sir,  I  leave  it  for  the  House  to  decide 
whether  the  gentleman  can  get  off  under  the  tech 
nical  plea  that  he  was  not  a  judge  advocate.  He 
cannot  deny  that  he  discharged  the  duties  of  judge 
advocate  under  the  special  commission  which  I  have 
read,  and  he  was  paid  for  the  discharge  of  those  duties. 
The  case  falls  under  the  same  law  as  that  of  the  gentle 
man  from  Ohio[Mr.  ScliencK\,  who,  being  elected  a  Rep- 


230 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


resentative  in  Congress  while  yet  a  major-general,  de 
clined  to  receive  any  pay  as  a  member  until  lie  had 
resigned  his  office  in  the  Army  and  had  taken  his  seat 
in  this  House.  I  have  no  suggestions  to  make  about 
this,  except  that  I  consider  the  point  well  taken,  and 
that  in  my  view  this  committee,  if  appointed,  ought 
to  investigate  the  matter.  I  do  not  believe  that  the 
gentleman  received  the  money  rightfully,  though  I 
will  say  this^much  of  him,  if  he  will  permit  me,  that 
I  have  no  doubt  he  will  restore  it  if  convinced  he  has 
taken  it  improperly. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  all  I  have  to  say  further  in 
connection  with  this  matter  is,  that  what  I  stated  the 
other  day  has,  as  I  conceive,  been  fully,  entirely,  and 
emphatically  vindicated  by  the  record.  I  believe  I 
have  shown  the  members  of  this  House  that  I  am 
incapable  of  stating  anything  here  for  which  I  am  not 
responsible  — not  exactly  "here  or  elsewhere  "  —but 
responsible  as  a  gentleman  and  as  a  Representative. 

Mr.  Tkayer.  I  move  that  this  resolution  be  re 
ferred  to  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs. 

Mr.  Gonkling.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  sought  the  floor 
again  to  say  this,  which  possibly  I  omitted  to  state 
before :  that  no  commission  was  ever  issued  to  me  by 
the  Judge  Advocate  General.  For  fear  that  I  omitted 
to  state  it,  I  beg  leave  to  say  that  no  commission, 
paper,  or  authority  whatever  was  ever  issued  to  me 
except  the  letter  of  retainer  which  has  been  read,  em 
ploying  me  to  act,  according  to  its  language,  before 
military  courts  and  before  other  tribunals. 

Mr.  Blaine.     Mr.  Speaker— 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  231 

The  Speaker.  Does  the  gentleman  from  New 
York  yield  to  the  gentleman  from  Maine  ? 

Mr.  Colliding.  No,  sir.  I  do  not  wish  to  have 
anything  to  do  with  the  member  from  Maine,  not  even 
so  much  as  to  yield  him  the  floor. 

Mr.  Elaine.     All  right. 

Mr.  Conkling.  I  only  want  to  say  that  the  only 
authority  under  which  1  acted  was  that  which  has 
been  read,  and  that  I  acted  as  counsel  for  the  United 
States ;  and  the  business  of  counsel  in  that  particular 
case  I  tried,  as  the  case  was  tried  before  a  military 
tribunal,  was,  of  course,  of  the  same  general  character 
that  would  have  been  done  by  a  judge  advocate,  had 
there  been  a  judge  advocate  for  the  court,  just  as  in 
the  trial  of  the  conspirators,  the  distinguished  gentle 
man  who  sits  before  me  [Mr.  Bingliam\  performed 
the  same  line  of  professional  employment  that  a  regu 
lar  judge  advocate  would  have  performed  had  he  been 
there. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  one  thing  further :  if  the  mem 
ber  from  Maine  had  the  least  idea  how  profoundly  in 
different  I  am  to  his  opinion  upon  the  subject  which 
he  has  been  discussing,  or  upon  any  other  subject 
personal  to  me,  I  think  he  would  hardly  take  the 
trouble  to  rise  here  and  express  his  opinion.  And  as 
it  is  a  matter  of  entire  indifference  to  me  what  that 
opinion  may  be,  I  certainly  will  not  detain  the  House 
by  discussing  the  question  whether  it  is  well  or  ill- 
founded,  or  by  noticing  what  he  says.  I  submit  the 
whole  matter  to  the  members  of  the  House,  making 
as  I  do  an  apology  (for  I  feel  that  it  is  due  to  the 
House)  for  the  length  of  time  which  I  have  occupied 


232  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

in  consequence  of  being  drawn  into  explanations,  orig 
inally,  by  an  interruption  which  I  pronounced  the 
other  day  ungentlemanly  and  impertinent,  and  having 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  question. 

Mr.  .Ross.  I  rise  to  a  point  of  order.  I  submit 
that  the  defense  of  the  gentleman  from  New  York 
should  be  made  before  this  committee  and  not  before 
the  House. 

The  Speaker.     That  is  scarcely  a  point  of  order. 

Mr.  Elaine.  It  is  hardly  worth  while  to  pursue 
this  controversy  further ;  but  still  the  gentleman  from 
New  York  cannot  get  off  on  the  technicality  which  he 
has  suggested.  He  says  that  a  commission  never  was 
issued  to  him.  I  understand  him  to  admit  that  if  a 
commission  had  been  issued  to  him  he  could  not  have 
taken  pay  for  both  offices.  Now,  everyone  knows  that 
those  preliminary  authorizations  are  the  things  on 
which  half  the  business  arising  out  of  the  war  has 
been  done.  Men  have  fought  at  the  head  of  battal 
ions  and  divisions  and  Army  corps  without  having  re 
ceived  their  formal  commissions.  The  gentleman  was 
just  as  much  bound  to  respect  the  law  under  that 
appointment  as  though  it  had  been  a  formal  commis 
sion  with  the  signature  of  the  Secretary  of  War. 

As  to  the  gentleman's  cruel  sarcasm,  I  hope  he 
will  not  be  too  severe.  The  contempt  of  that  large- 
minded  gentleman  is  so  wilting  ;  his  haughty  disdain, 
his  grandiloquent  swell,  his  majestic,  supereminent, 
overpowering,  turkey-gobbler  strut  has  been  so  crush 
ing  to  myself  and  all  the  members  of  this  House  that 
I  know  it  was  an  act  of  the  greatest  temerity  for  me 
to  venture  upon  a  controversy  with  him.  But,  sir,  I 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY  CONTROVERSY.  233 

know  who  is  responsible  for  all  this.  I  know  that 
within  the  last  five  weeks,  as  members  of  the  House 
will  recollect,  an  extra  strut  has  characterized  the  gen 
tleman's  bearing.  It  is  not  his  fault.  It  is  the  fault 
of  another.  That  gifted  and  satirical  writer,  Theo 
dore  Tilton,  of  the  New  York  Independent,  spent  some 
weeks  recently  in  this  city.  His  letters  published  in 
that  paper  embraced,  with  many  serious  statements,  a 
little  jocose  satire,  a  part  of  which  was  the  statement 
that  the  mantle  of  the  late  Winter  Davis  had  fallen 
upon  the  member  from  New  York.  The  gentleman 
took  it  seriously,  and  it  has  given  his  strut  additional 
pomposity.  The  resemblance  is  great.  It  is  striking. 
Hyperion  to  a  satyr,  Thersites  to  Hercules,  mud  to 
marble,  dunghill  to  diamond,  a  singed  cat  to  a  Bengal 
tiger,  a  whining  puppy  to  a  roaring  lion.  Shade  of  the 
mighty  Davis,  forgive  the  almost  profanation  of  that 
jocose  satire  ! 

The  Speaker.  The  Chair  will  state  at  the  con 
clusion  of  these  personal  remarks  that,  as  the  House 
had  granted  unanimous  consent  for  a  personal  explan 
ation,  and  it  was  presumed,  of  course,  personalities 
would  be  indulged  in,  he  has  refrained  from  calling 
gentlemen  to  order.  If  any  member  had  called  to 
order,  the  Chair  would  at  once  have  strictly  enforced 
the  rule. 

Mr.  Conkling.  I  ask  the  gentleman  from  Penn 
sylvania  [Mr.  Thayer~\  to  withdraw  the  motion  to 
refer  to  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs. 

Mr.  Schenck.  That  committee  has  now  as  much 
as  it  can  attend  to,  and  besides  that,  the  gentleman 
from  Maine  is  on  that  committee. 


234  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FEY    CONTROVERSY. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  with 
draw  his  motion.  I  am  a  member  of  the  Committee 
on  Military  Affairs  and  the  reference  would  be  wholly 
improper. 

Mr.  Henderson.  I  move  to  lay  the  resolution  on 
the  table. 

The  motion  was  disagreed  to. 

The  question  then  recurred  on  Mr.  Thayer's  mo 
tion  to  refer  to  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs ;  and 
it  was  also  disagreed  to. 

Mr.  Conkling  demanded  the  previous  question. 

The  previous  question  was  seconded  and  the  main 
question  ordered ;  and  under  the  operation  thereof  the 
resolution  was  adopted. 

Mr.  Conkling  moved  to  reconsider  the  vote  by 
which  the  resolution  was  adopted ;  and  also  moved 
that  the  motion  to  reconsider  be  laid  upon  the  table. 

The  latter  motion  was  agreed  to. 


APPENDIX  C. 

Memorial  of  A.  G.  Riddle,  counsel  for  General  fry, 
asking  that  the  accompanying  papers  may  be 
treated  by  the  House  as  evidence  in  the  ConTcling- 
Fry  case,  on  the  ground  that  said  papers  were 
put  in  evidence  by  General  Fry  before  the  Com 
mittee,  are  competent  and  material  to  the  issues, 
and  are  regarded  ly  the  Committee  as  not  in  the 
case. 

To  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Thirty-Ninth 
Congress : 

I  respectfully  ask  permission  to  submit  the  following : 

I  acted  as  counsel  for  General  James  B.  Fry  in  the  recent  investiga 
tion  before  a  Committee  of  the  House.  It  appears  by  the  Report  of  that 
Committee  that  two  letters  appearing  in  my  argument  were  not  re 
garded  as  in  evidence  in  the  case,  and  are  of  doubtful  authenticity.  It 
will  be  found  that  these  letters  are  most  material  to  a  right  understand 
ing  of  that  part  of  the  case,  and  that  they  are  two  of  a  scries  of  some 
twenty-three  papers,  all  offered,  as  will  be  shown  in  evidence,  on  the  part 
of  General  Fry,  and  all  competent  and  important  evidence.  And  it  is 
for  the  purpose  of  relieving  the  letters  referred  to  from  doubt,  and  also 
to  place  in  the  possession  of  the  House  the  other  papers  referred  to  (as 
well  as  to  relieve  myself  of  incidental  imputation),  that  this  memorial 
and  the  accompanying  papers  are  submitted  to  the  House.  It  will  be 
found  difficult,  it  is  submitted,  to  correctly  judge  of  material  portions  of 
the  ConTding-Fry  case  in  the  absence  of  these  papers,  as  they  contain 
the  whole  of  General  fry1  s  evidence  on  the  points  they  refer  to. 

I  ask  attention  to  the  letter  of  General  Jeffries,  herewith  submitted, 
and  marked  "A,"  which,  I  believe,  truly  discloses  the  facts  in  refer 
ence  to  the  offering  and  receiving  the  papers  in  evidence  before  the 
Committee. 

I  never  heard  a  doubt  of  the  authenticity  of  either  of  these  letters, 
or  that  the  originals  of  either  had  been  called  for,  until  I  saw  the  report 
of  your  Committee,  nor  did  I  ever  hear  a  question  raised  as  to  whether 
these  papers,  or  any  of  them,  were  in  evidence,  until,  as  I  think,  the 
llth  or  12th  of  July,  instant. 

235 


236  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

From  the  day  of  their  being  offered,  as  stated  by  General  Jeffrie*, 
until  the  9th  instant,  they  all  remained  among  the  papers  in  the  case, 
and  were  returned  to  General  Fry  by  Mr,  Boyer,  of  the  court,  as  I  am 
informed,  pursuant  to  the  letter  of  General  Fry  of  that  date,  addressed 
to  Mr.  Boyer,  and  herewith  submitted,  marked  "  B." 

The  letters  contained  in  my  "  reply  "  were  among  those  so  returned, 
copies  of  all  of  which  are  herewith  submitted. 

For  convenience,  I  have  arranged  these  in  three  groups,  and  have 
endorsed  on  the  back  of  each  group  the  point  to  which  they  refer,  and 
the  use  I  made  of  them. 

It  will  at  once  be  seen  that  groups  one  and  two  comprise  the  entire 
total  of  every  item  of  proof  offered  by  General  Fry  on  the  important 
matter  of  the  Hoboken  raid,  and  the  court's  record  must  show  that  he 
gave  no  proof  on  this  point  if  these  are  not  in  evidence. 

I  was  not  present  when  General  Jeffries  offered  any  of  these  papers 
in  evidence.  I  saw  them  several  times  tied  up  in  a  bundle,  among  the 
other  papers,  and  I  was  twice  present  when  General  Jeffries  proposed 
to  substitute  certified  copies  of  the  papers  for  the  originals,  and  I  know 
that  nobody  at  either  time  pretended  that  they  were  not  in  evidence. 

The  copies  so  offered  are  the  same  heretofore  submitted,  with  the 
exception  of  the  copies  of  the  two  contained  in  my  reply, — those  went 
to  the  Government  Printer,  and  will  be  found  with  the  manuscript. 

No  reporter  was  present  at  my  reply  to  Mr.  C.,  and,  I  think,  no 
person  except  the  Committee,  Mr.  C.  and  myself.  It  was  made  after 
ten  in  the  evening,  after  a  protracted  and  exhausting  session.  The  part 
of  it  in  reference  to  the  Hoboken  raid  was  pursuant  to  a  well-settled 
mental  programme.  I  had  long  been  familiar  with  that  part  of  the 
case.  I  think  the  effect  not  a  happy  one.  I  was  exhausted,  and  was 
conscious  of  not  having  the  attention  of  the  Committee.  I  held  the 
copies  referred  to  in  my  hand.  I  read  none  of  them,  but  named  them, 
and  urged  the  Committee  to  read  them.  I  supposed  they  had  been 
read  when  put  in  evidence. 

When  I  referred  to  the  Allen  memorial,  Mr.  Cook  asked  me  if  there 
was  such  a  paper  in  evidence,  and  I  told  him  there  was,  and  to  that  no 
reply  was  made.  At  the  conclusion,  I  said  to  the  Committee  that  I 
must  have  liberty  to  collate  the  papers,  make  correct  copies,  and>  per 
haps,  print  some  of  them — to  which  I  heard  no  objection. 

At  my  earliest  leisure  I  wrote  a  report  of  my  remarks,  following 
my  original  programme  as  near  as  I  could  remember  to  have  followed 
it  in  the  oral  argument.  I  omitted  much  that  I  said.  I  could  not  re 
call  the  language  used ;  but  I  am  certain  that  I  did  not  introduce  into  it 
any  new  matter,  or  new  views  or  arguments. 

This  report  I  had  accurately  copied,  except  the  two  letters,  and  for 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  237 

those  the  certified  copies,  above  referred  to,  were  used.  This  copy, 
with  these  certified  copies  included,  I  myself  placed  in  the  hand*  of  the 
Committee,  and  have  never  seen  it  since.  Hearing  a  day  or  two  later 
that  that  copy  had  been  sent  to  the  Public  Printer  by  the  court,  and  de 
siring  to  recall  the  attention  of  the  court  to  the  argument  of  my  reply, 
I  sent  the  report  made  by  myself  (the  copies  of  the  two  letters  being 
with  the  Committee's  copy)  to  Mr.  Cook,  to  whom  I  understood  the 
Committee  had  committed  the  labor  of  writing  the  report.  With  it,  I 
sent  a  note,  informing  Mr.  C.  that  he  would  find  the  originals  of  the 
two  letters  among  the  papers  in  the  case. 

On  the  10th  instant,  Mr.  Cook  informed  me  that  he  had  not  found 
the  letters.  I  went  to  the  Committee  room,  and  was  told  that  they  had 
been  returned  to  General  F.,  and,  on  inquiry,  I  was  told  that  he  was 
absent  with  the  papers  in  New  York  City. 

One  or  two  days  following,  I,  for  the  first  time,  heard,  and  from 
Mr.  Boyer,  that  the  Committee  had  no  recollection  that  these  letters 
were  in  proof,  nor  that  I  had  referred  to  them  in  my  summing  up.  I 
immediately  addressed  a  note  to  the  Chairman,  and  subsequently  for 
warded  a  note  of  General  Jeffries  to  him.  I  was  never  called  upon,  nor 
was  anybody  else,  on  the  part  of  General  Fry,  to  furnish  these  letters  or 
copies,  or  to  make  any  explanation  in  reference  to  them,  nor  did  I  know 
what  was  the  view  of  the  Committee  till  I  saw  their  report.  My  argu 
ment  and  reply  were  printed  by  the  Committee,  as  I  suppose.  The  only 
thing  I  had  to  do  with  that  was  to  correct  the  proof.  Nobody,  on  be 
half  of  General  Fry,  had  anything  to  do  with  it.  The  Superintendent 
of  Public  Printing  told  me  I  could  have  some  extra  copies  upon  paying 
for  them,  and  I  ordered  100  copies.  I  applied  to  the  Chairman  of  the 
Committee  to  know  whether  I  might  then  distribute  a  part  of  them.  He 
told  me  he  could  see  no  impropriety  in  it.  On  the  next  day  I  sent 
25  copies  to  the  House, — one  for  each  of  the  Committee,  one  for 
the  counsel  of  Mr,  Conkliny,  some  to  my  acquaintances  of  the  Ohio 
delegation,  and  to  others, — the  friends  of  both  parties,  I  also  forwarded 
one  to  the  Tribune,  and  one  to  the  Utica  Herald. 

I  respectfully  ask  that  this  memorial  may  be  printed  for  the  infor 
mation  of  the  House,  and  that  the  evidence  herewith  submitted  may 
be  received  and  treated  as  evidence  in  the  case,  to  the  end  that  if, 
through  the  carelessness  or  inattention  of  his  counsel,  General  Fry  has 
failed  to  have  this  evidence  received  and  considered  by  the  Committee, 
that  he  may  have  the  benefit  of  it  on  the  final  consideration  of  the  case 
by  the  House. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

(Signed)  A.  G.  RIDDLE. 

Washington,  July  17,  1866. 


238 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


"A."  LETTER   OF  GENERAL   JEFFRIES. 

WAR  DEPARTMENT, 

PROVOST   MARSHAL   GENERAL'S   BUREAU, 

Washington,  D.G.,  July  16,  1866. 

HON.  A.  G.  RIDDLE.  Sir: — As  I  have  already  stated  to  you  in  a 
former  note,  there  is  no  question  as  to  the  fact  that  the  two  letters  set 
out  in  your  printed  argument  were  offered  in  evidence  by  me  as  coun 
sel  for  General  Fry,  at  the  same  time  the  other  letters  on  the  Hoboken 
subject  were  submitted  to  the  Committee,  and  they  were  received  in 
evidence  in  the  same  manner  as  the  other  exhibits  relating  to  that 
subject. 

One  of  these  letters,  viz. :  the  one  dated  March  16,  and  another 
letter,  contained  certain  memoranda,  in  the  hand-writing  of  one  of  the 
clerks  in  this  Bureau,  and  I  remarked  to  the  Committee  that  I  desired 
to  make  certain  proof  as  to  that  memorandum,  which  would  require 
time  to  bring  the  witness  from  the  office,  when  it  was  remarked  that  I 
need  not  delay  on  that  account,  and  so  it  went  in  with  the  others.  It 
will  be  remembered  that  the  exhibits  were  offered  seriatim,  until  a  cer 
tain  number  had  been  reached — Mr.  Conkling  stating  his  objections  from 
time  to  time  as  each  paper  was  offered,  until  at  length  Mr.  Warner  de 
cided  to  admit  the  whole  of  the  "bundle,"  subject  to  such  objection  as 
might  be  deemed  pertinent,  and  in  that  bundle  was  the  letter  of  the 
29th,  which  you  set  out  in  argument. 

There  is  no  question  as  to  the  genuineness  of  these  letters,  as  the  rec 
ords  of  this  office  and  the  clerks  will  testify. 

The  "  bundle  "  of  exhibits  in  the  "  Hoboken  case  "  comprised  the 
entire  correspondence  on  that  subject,  and  each  paper  was  numbered, 
the  series  numbering  from  one  to  twenty-three,  I  think.  The  letter  in 
dispute,  of  the  16th,  is  numbered  thirteen.  (I  have  it  now  before  me.) 
The  other  of  the  29th  was  left  by  General  Fry  in  New  York,  where  he 
was  called  as  a  witness  on  a  matter  connected  with  this  subject,  since 
the  close  of  the  testimony  in  the  case. 

If  these  letters  are  not  in  evidence,  it  is  because  they  have  been 
ruled  out. 

If  this  statement  is  questioned,  I  am  able  to  prove  its  correctness  by 
persons  who  were  present,  and  distinctly  remember  the  whole  trans 
action. 

When  the  papers  were  returned  again  to  General  Fry  by  the 
Committee,  these  two  letters  were  still  in  the  "bundle."  This  fact  I 
learn  from  General  Fry,  and  from  the  circumstance  that  one  of  them  is 
s^inthe  "bundle." 

But,  aside  from  this,  to  show  that  I  offered  these  letters  in  evidence. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  239 

the  clerks  of  this  office  will  testify  that  they  made  copies  of  all  the  cor 
respondence  for  General  Fry.  These  copies  I  presented  to  the  Commit 
tee,  and  requested  permission  to  withdraw  the  originals,  because  it  was 
necessary  for  General  Fry  to  take  them  with  him  to  New  York.  Mr. 
Conkling  objected,  and  the  Committee  ruled  that  they  would  retain  them 
until  they  had  read  the  evidence  and  heard  the  argument,  and  then  de 
liver  them  to  General  Fry. 

These  copies  were  duly  certified  in  the  same  manner  as  other  ad 
mitted  exhibits,  so  that  the  letters  were  first  offered  and  admitted,  and 
again  certified  copies  were  offered. 

(Signed)  N.  L.  JEFFRIES, 

Counsel  for  General  Fry. 

Note. — For  action  of  House  upon  this  petition,  see  Appendix  D. 


APPENDIX  D. 

PROVOST    MARSHAL    GENERAL^     BUREAU. 

Mr.  SJiellabarger.  I  now  call  up  the  report  of 
the  Select  Committee  appointed  April  30,  1866,  to  in 
vestigate  the  statements  and  charges  made  by  Hon. 
Roscoe  Colliding,  in  his  place,  against  Provost  Marshal 
General  Fry  and  his  Bureau — whether  any  frauds 
have  been  perpetrated  in  his  office  in  connection  with 
the  recruiting  service  ;  also  to  examine  into  the  state 
ments  made  by  General  Fry  in  his  communication  to 
Hon.  Mr.  Elaine,  read  in  the  House. 

Mr.  Hotcliklss.  I  ask  for  the  reading  of  the  re 
port. 

Mr.  Johnson.  I  desire  to  inquire  whether  there 
is  any  minority  report  in  this  case,  or  an  objecting  re 
port  of  any  kind. 

Mr.  Shellabarger.  There  is  no  jirinority  report. 
This  is  the  unanimous  report  of  the  Committee. 

Mr.  Johnson.  Unless  some  one  controverts  the  re 
port,  I  do  not  think  the  time  should  be  taken  up  with 
reading  an  elaborate  report. 

Mr.  Hotclikiss.  I  asked  for  the  reading  as  I  sup 
posed  it  was  a  matter  of  right. 

The  Speaker.  Any  member  has  the  right  to  have 
the  report  read. 

The  Clerk  read  the  report  as  follows : 
240 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  241 

HON.  ROSCOE  CONK  LING  AND  PROVOST  MARSHAL 
GENERAL  FRY. 


JULY  14,  18G6.—  Ordered  to  be  printed. 

Mr.  SHELLABARGER  from  the  Select  Committee  to  investigate  this  case, 
made  the  following 

REPORT. 

The  Select  Committee,  appointed  April  80,  1866,  to  investigate  the  state 
ments  and  charges  made  ~by  lion.  Roscoe  ConMing,  in  his  place,  against 
Provost  Marshal  General  Fry  and  hi*  bureau — whether  any  frauds 
have  "been  perpetrated  in  his  office  in  connexion  with  the  recruiting  ser 
vice;  also  to  examine  into  the  statements  made  by  General  Fry  in  his 
communication  to  lion.  Mr.  Elaine,  read  in  the  House,  having  com 
pleted  their  labors  as  to  one  branch  of  their  investigation,  submit  the 
following  report: 

When  your  committee  was  about  to  enter  upon  the  performance  of 
the  duties  enjoined  upon  it  by  the  orders  of  the  House,  it  became  appar 
ent  that  a  full  investigation  of  all  matters  embraced  within  the  scope  of 
its  authority  could  not  be  completed  during  the  present  session  of  Con 
gress.  In  view  of  the  time,  labor,  and  public  expense  necessarily  in 
volved  in  the  performance  of  the  work,  your  committee  had  under  con 
sideration  the  propriety  of  making  a  preliminary  report  to  the  House, 
setting  forth  the  magnitude  of  the  task  assigned  to  it,  and  asking  for 
further  instructions  in  the  premises.  But  in  consideration  of  the  fact 
that  the  character  of  a  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  had 
been  publicly  assailed  with  serious  charges  in  a  letter  emanating  from 
the  head  of  an  important  bureau  of  the  government,  addressed  to  an 
other  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  and  by  him  caused  to  be 
read  to  the  House,  and  thus  made  a  part  of  the  published  and  perma 
nent  record  of  its  proceedings,  we  deemed  that  it  was  the  privilege  of 
the  member  thus  gravely  charged,  and  due  also  to  the  House  itself,  that 
your  committee  should  proceed  without  delay  to  the  investigation  of  at 
least  that  branch  of  the  case  which  relates  to  the  charges  preferred  by 
Provost  Marshal  General  Fry  against  the  Hon.  Roscoe  Conkling.  Your 
committee  did  this  the  more  readily,  as  the  member  thus  charged 
pleaded  and  insisted  upon  his  privilege  to  have  an  early  investigation  of 
that  branch  of  the  case,  and  no  objection  was  interposed  by  any  party 
to  its  separate  consideration  and  prompt  decision,  leaving  the  remaining 
branch  of  the  investigation  relating  to  the  conduct  of  the  bureau  of  the 
Provost  Marshal  General  to  the  future  action  of  the  committee. 

Your  committee,  therefore,  as  will  appear  in  the  journal  of  its  pro- 


242 


CONKLING    AND    ELAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


ceedings,  have  thus  far  confined  their  investigation  to  the  charges 
against  Mr.  Conkling  contained  in  the  letter  of  General  Fry  to  Mr. 
Blaine,  and  excluded  all  testimony  bearing  upon  the  conduct  of  Gen 
eral  Fry  as  Provost  Marshal  General,  except  so  far  as  that  was  deemed 
necessary  to  a  full  investigation  of  the  charges  against  Mr.  Conkling. 
The  testimony  touching  the  Hoboken  credits  and  the  disposal  of  the 
$54,000  bounty  money  arising  therefrom  was  admitted  to  show,  as  was 
alleged,  a  settled  purpose  on  the  part  of  General  Fry  to  injure  Mr.  Conk 
ling,  dating  back  long  anterior  to  the  Blaine  letter,  and  evinced  by  his 
alleged  attempt  to  procure  by  a  corrupt  bargain  testimony  to  be  used 
against  Mr.  Conkling  in  relation  to  certain  alleged  frauds  in  the  Utica 
district  of  the  State  of  New  York.  Your  committee  deemed  it  a  legiti 
mate  subject  of  inquiry  to  investigate  to  that  extent  the  motive  of  Gen 
eral  Fry,  and  its  connexion,  if  any,  with  the  animus  which  prompted 
the  letter  to  Mr.  Blaine.  Both  parties  were,  therefore,  allowed  full  op 
portunity  to  introduce  testimony  relating  to  that  point. 

The  first  statement  of  the  letter  of  General  Fry  to  be  investigated 
under  the  rule  adopted  by  the  committee  is  as  follows : 

"  In  the  summer  of  1863  Mr.  Conkling  made  a  case  for  himself  by 
telegraphing  to  the  War  Department  that  the  provost  marshal  of  his  dis 
trict  required  legal  advice,  which  he  was  hereupon  [thereupon]  em 
powered  to  give. ' ' 

The  committee  understand  this  charge  to  be,  that  Mr.  Conkling  se 
cured  his  own  employment  professionally,  by  the  department,  by  tele 
graphing  that  the  provost  marshal  of  his  district  required  legal  advice, 
and  that  his  motive  and  object  in  transmitting  the  despatch  was  to  se 
cure  such  employment.  Unless  this  is  the  meaning  of  the  words  of  the 
letter,  there  is  no  significance  at  all  to  be  attached  to  them,  in  the  con 
nexion  in  which  they  are  used.  The  evidence  shows  that,  in  the  latter 
part  of  July,  18G3,  a  man  named  Hobson  was  arrested  in  the  21st 
district  of  New  York  as  a  deserter.  A  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  issued 
by  Judge  Bacon,  justice  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  placed  in  the  hands 
of  the  sheriff  of  Oneida  county.  A  return  was  made  by  the  officer  hav 
ing  the  deserter  in  custody,  which  return  showed  that  the  man  was 
held  by  the  military  authorities  as  a  deserter  from  the  military  service 
of  the  United  States.  This  return  was  adjudged  insufficient  by  the 
judge  who  issued  the  writ,  and  a  writ  of  attachment  was  ordered  and 
issued  against  the  officer  for  declining  to  bring  the  deserter  before  the 
judge,  in  obedience  to  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus.  A  direct  conflict  had 
arisen  between  the  military  authorities  of  the  United  States  and  the 
authorities  of  the  State  of  New  York,  in  reference  to  which  very  great 
excitement  had  arisen  among  the  people  of  the  district.  The  district 
attorney  was  absent.  Mr.  Kernan,  the  representative  from  that  dis- 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-PRY  CONTROVERSY.  243 

trict,  had  been  engaged  as  counsel  against  the  government,  and  the  dan 
ger  of  a  collision  between  the  national  and  State  authorities  was  imme 
diate  and  palpable.  In  the  emergency,  and  acting  at  the  request  and 
upon  advice  of  eminent  citizens  of  the  district,  Mr.  Conkling  sent  to 
the  Secretary  of  War  the  following  despatch : 

"  In  the  absence  of  all  of  us  who  could  aid  him  professionally,  the 
provost  marshal  here  was  served  with  a  habeas  corpus  to  produce  a  de 
serter  ;  he  obeyed  the  order  not  to  produce,  and  so  returned.  The 
judge  held  this  insufficient,  and  issued  attachment.  He  telegraphed  the 
district  attorney  and  his  assistant.  They  are  absent  and  engaged. 
What  shall  we  do?  R,  CONKLING." 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  despatch  does  not  inform  the  Secretary 
of  War  that  the  provost  marshal  required  legal  advice,  but  was  a  suc 
cinct  statement  of  the  actual  state  of  facts,  and  a  request  that  the  Sec 
retary  should  direct  what  should  be  done  in  an  emergency  which  excited 
the  apprehensions  of  the  friends  of  the  government.  In  the  opinion  of 
the  committee,  Mr.  Conkling  did  only  what  he  was  fully  justified  in  do 
ing  in  this  matter,  and  there  is  no  evidence  tending,  however  remotely, 
to  show  that  in  sending  the  despatch  he  was  influenced  by  any  merely 
personal  motive. 

The  second  statement  of  General  Fry's  letter  which  has  elaimed  the 
attention  of  the  committee  is  as  follows : 

"In  April,  1865,  Mr.  Charles  A.  Dana,  then  Assistant  Secretary  of 
War,  without  notifying  me,  had  Mr.  Conkling  appointed  to  investigate 
all  frauds  in  enlistments  in  western  New  York,  with  the  stipulation  that 
he  should  be  commissioned  judge  advocate  for  the  prosecution  of  any 
cases  brought  to  trial,  and  he  was  appointed  to  prosecute,  before  a  gen 
eral  court-martial,  Major  J.  A.  Haddock.  Mr.  Dana  vested  him,  by 
several  orders  issued  in  the  name  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  without 
the  sanction  of  Mr.  Stanton,  with  the  most  extraordinary  powers. 
Among  these  was  the  right  to  examine  the  despatches  in  all  [the]  tele 
graph  offices  in  the  western  division  of  New  York,  which  enabled  a 
violation  of  the  sanctity  of  personal  and  business  correspondence." 

In  another  part  of  the  letter  Mr.  Dana  is  spoken  of  as  the  friend  of 
Mr.  Conkling ;  and  the  committee  understand  the  imputation  of  this 
portion  of  the  letter  to  be,  that  Mr.  Dana,  of  his  own  motion,  without 
notice  to  General  Fry,  and  without  the  sanction  of  the  Secretary  of 
War,  and  by  some  management  or  understanding  between  Mr.  Dana 
and  Mr.  Conkling,  appointed  Mr.  Conkling  to  investigate  frauds  in  en 
listments  in  western  New  York,  and  vested  him  with  extraordinary 
powers. 

It  has  been  proved  before  the  committee  by  the  testimony  of  the 


244  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

Secretary  of  War  that  about  the  30th  of  March,  1865,  the  Secretary  of 
War  directed  Mr.  Dana  to  telegraph  to  Mr.  Conkling  to  come  to  Wash 
ington,  to  consult  with  the  Secretary  in  relation  to  certain  frauds  in 
western  New  York,  in  regard  to  which  a  report  had  been  made  by  Major 
Luddington,  [Ludingtori]  an  inspecting  officer,  who  had  been  sent  to 
New  York  for  the  purpose  of  investigation.  The  Secretary  of  War  testifies 
that  he  had  himself  determined  that  Mr.  Conkling  should  take  charge 
of  the  investigation  of  those  frauds,  if  he  would  do  so,  and  for  that  pur 
pose  directed  the  despatch  to  be  sent  to  Mr.  Conkling  requesting  him  to 
come  to  Washington.  On  the  2d  of  April  Mr.  Conkling  came  to  Wash 
ington,  and  had  an  interview  with  the  Secretary  of  War,  who  then 
urged  him  to  take  charge  of  the  investigation  referred  to,  stating,  at 
the  same  time,  that  "  he  considered  a  diligent  and  rigorous  investiga 
tion  as  absolutely  necessary  to  the  safety  of  the  country ;  that  we  were 
at  that  time  engaged  in  the  midst  of  a  draft ;  General  Grant  had  com 
menced  his  movements ;  and  that  everything  depended  upon  keeping 
the  army  up,  and  the  means  of  keeping  the  army  up  was  the  diligent 
and  vigorous  recruiting  which  was  then  going  on."  That  Mr.  Conk 
ling  expressed  himself  very  reluctant  to  engage  in  it.  The  Secretary 
of  War  expressed  to  Mr.  Conkling  an  unqualified  opinion  that  there 
was  nothing  in  the  service  which  he  asked  of  him  incompatible  with 
his  position  as  a  member  of  Congress  elect,  and  gave  him  reasons  at 
length  for  that  opinion,  and  insisted  that  it  was  as  much  the  duty  of 
Mr.  Conkling  to  use  his  legal  knowledge  in  aid  of  the  government  in 
carrying  on  the  war  as  to  shoulder  a  musket  to  drive  the  enemy  out  of 
this  department,  and  that  Mr.  Conkling  was  not  at  liberty  to  deny  the 
Secretary  of  War  the  benefit  of  his  services. 

The  Secretary  of  War  also  testified  that,  if  there  was  anything 
wrong  in  Mr.  Conkling's  taking  that  duty  at  that  time,  the  wrong 
rests  on  the  shoulders  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  not  on  Mr.  Conk- 
ling's. 

That  the  Secretary  is  the  person  that  ought  to  be  responsible,  in  the 
public  judgment,  for  forcing  upon  Mr.  Conkling  what  the  Secretary 
regarded  as  a  public  duty ;  and  that  he  had  no  other  reason  for  forcing 
it  upon  Mr.  Conkling  than  the  facts  that  he  thought  it  a  vital  duty,  and 
knew  Mr.  Conkling  to  be  competent  to  perform  it. 

The  Secretary  of  War  directed  Mr.  Dana  to  prepare  the  papers  for 
Mr.  Conkling,  in  case  he  should  conclude  to  render  the  services  requir 
ed,  and  the  papers  prepared  and  given  to  Mr.  Conkling  are  in  conform 
ity  with  the  instructions  of  the  Secretary  of  War.  Mr.  Conkling,  after 
consultation  with  the  Judge  Advocate  General,  whose  views  corre 
sponded  with  those  of  the  Secretary,  undertook  to  render  the  services 
required. 


CONKLING    AND    ELAINE  FRF    CONTROVERSY.  245 

It  is  clear,  from  the  evidence,  that,  so  far  from  Mr.  Conkling's  ap 
pointment  having  been  made  by  Mr.  Dana,  and  the  powers  with  which 
he  was  clothed  having  been  vested  in  him  by  Mr.  Dana,  the  appoint 
ment  and  the  powers  accompanying  it  were  conferred  upon  Mr.  Conk- 
ling  by  the  Secretary  of  War  himself;  that  Mr.  Dana  had  nothing  to 
do  with  the  matter  except  to  prepare  the  papers  under  the  specific  di 
rection  of  the  Secretary.  These  powers  were  specified  in  the  following 
papers : 

WAR  DEPARTMENT, 

•Washington  City,  April  3,  18G5. 

SIR  :  I  am  instructed  by  the  Secretary  of  War  to  authorize  you  to  in 
vestigate  all  cases  of  fraud  in  the  provost  marshal's  office  [department]  of 
the  western  division  of  New  York,  and  all  misdemeanors  connected  with 
recruiting.  You  will,  from  time  to  time,  make  report  to  the  [this]  de 
partment  of  the  progress  of  your  labors,  and  will  apply  for  any  special 
authority  for  which  you  may  have  occasion.  The  Judge  Advocate  Gen 
eral  will  be  instructed  to  issue  to  you  an  appointment  as  special  judge 
advocate  for  the  prosecution  of  any  cases  that  may  be  brought  to  trial 
before  a  military  tribunal.  You  will  also  appear  in  behalf  of  this  de 
partment  in  any  cases  that  it  may  be  deemed  more  expedient  to  bring 
before  the  civil  tribunals. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

C.  A.  DANA, 
Assistant  Secretary  of  War. 

Hon.  ROSCOE  CONKLING. 


WAR  DEPARTMENT, 

Washington  City,  April  3,  1865. 

Hon.  Roscoe  Conkling  having  been  appointed  by  the  Secretary  of 
War  to  investigate  transactions  connected  with  recruiting  in  the  west 
ern  division  of  New  York,  all  telegraph  companies  and  operators  are 
respectfully  requested  to  afford  him  access  to  any  despatches  which  he 
may  require,  for  the  purpose  of  detecting  frauds,  and  bringing  criminals 
to  trial. 

By  order  of  the  Secretary  of  War  : 

C.  A.  DANA, 
Assistant  Secretary  of  War. 

WAR  DEPARTMENT, 

Washington  City,  April  3,  1865. 

Hon.  Roscoe  Conkling  having  been  appointed  by  the  Secretary  of 
War  to  investigate  transactions  connected  with  recruiting  in  the  western 
division  of  New  York,  all  provost  marshals  and  other  military  officers 
are  hereby  directed  to  give  him  free  access  to  all  their  official  records 
and  correspondence,  and  to  furnish  him  certified  copies  of  any  papers 
that  he  may  require. 

By  order  of  the  Secretary  of  War : 

C.  A.  DANA, 
Assistant  Secretary  of  War. 

The  committee  have  failed  to  discover  that  any  extraordinary 
powers  were  conferred  upon  Mr.  Conkling  without  the  sanction  of  the 


'J46  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

Secretary  of  War,  which  enabled  him  to  violate  the  sanctity  of  per- 
Ronal  business  correspondence.  It  is  certain  that  no  complaint  that 
the  sanctity  of  any  personal  business  correspondence  has  been  violated 
by  Mr.  Conkling  under  that  authority  has  been  brought  to  the  notice 
of  the  committee.  Both  the  Secretary  of  War  and  Mr.  Dana  testify 
that  the  powers  given  to  Mr.  Conkling  were  those  usually  given  in  such 
cases,  and  in  regard  to  this  paper  the  Secretary  of  War  testifies:  "  I 
do  not  understand  the  paper  as  giving  him  any  right  to  make  use  of 
private  despatches  any  way,  but  to  be  a  request  only  to  telegraph  of 
ficers  to  afford  him  facilities  for  detecting  frauds  and  bringing  crim 
inals  to  trial.  The  other,  as  to  the  provost  marshals  giving  him  free  ac 
cess  to  their  records  and  correspondence,  is  a  general  authority  which 
is  given  in  all  such  cases,  and  is  necessary  for  any  person  engaged  in 
these  investigations  to  exercise.*'' 

It  appears  from  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Dana  that  the  appointment 
of  Mr.  Conkling  was  not  made  without  notify  ing  General  Fry,  but  that 
on  the  3d  of  April,  the  day  of  the  date  of  the  papers  which  were  given 
to  Mr.  Conkling.  and  the  day  on  which  he  signified  his  willingness  to 
undertake  the  duty,  General  Fry  was  informed  by  Mr.  Dana  that  the 
Secretary  of  War  had  employed  Mr.  Conkling  for  this  purpose,  and  had 
directed  that  he,  Mr.  Fry,  should  put  into  Mr.  Conkling' s  hands  at  once 
all  the  papers  relating  to  Major  Haddock. 

The  statement  of  General  Fry's  letter  in  relation  to  the  sums  re 
ceived,  or  reported  to  have  been  received,  by  Mr.  Conkling,  being 
adverted  to  in  another  place,  the  next  allegation  of  the  letter  is  as 
follows : 

' '  But,  as  hereafter  shown,  he  was  as  zealous  in  preventing  pros 
ecutions  at  Utica  as  he  was  in  making  them  at  Elmira,  and  the  main 
ground  of  difficulty  between  Mr.  Conkling  and  myself  has  been  that  I 
wanted  exposure  at  both  places,  while  he  wanted  concealment  at  one." 

In  investigating  the  charge  contained  in  this  paragraph,  the  com 
mittee  directed  their  inquiries  first  to  the  question  whether  Mr.  Conk 
ling  had  been  zealous  to  prevent  prosecution  of  persons  charged  with 
fraud  at  Utica  in  the  manner  particularly  specified  in  the  letter,  or  in 
any  other  manner;  and,  second,  whether  Mr.  Conkling  had  manifested 
any  desire  that  any  frauds  upon  the  government  at  Utica  should  be 
concealed,  or  any  inquiry  in  relation  to  them  suppressed. 

In  considering  these  questions  it  became  proper  for  the  committee 
to  determine  the  extent  of  the  duty  which  had  been  imposed  upon  Mr. 
Conkling  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  upon  this  question  the  under 
standing  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  by  whom  the  appointment  was  made, 
is  thus  given  in  his  testimony :  "  I  do  not  think  that  Mr.  Conkling 
was  authorized  or  directed  to  institute  prosecutions  against  any  one  dis- 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  24? 

connected  with  Major  Haddock.  Major  Haddock  was  the  chief  of  the 
department;  it  was  alleged  that  he  had  accomplices;  that  these  frauds 
were  the  result  of  combinations  and  conspiracies,  official  and  non  official , 
for  the  purpose  of  plundering  the  public  treasury ;  to  confine  the  power 
simply  to  Major  Haddock's  case  would  have  been  ineffectually  narrow. 
The  power  was  therefore  given  him  to  investigate  everything  in  con 
nexion  with  that  transaction,  and  it  would  have  been  unwise  for  the 
government  to  limit  it  or  confine  the  investigation  within  a  narrower 
compass  than  is  expressed  in  the  papers  But  the  assignment  of  Mr. 
Conkling  on  the  court-martial  determines  the  question,  the  order  de 
tailing  the  court  and  assigning  him  to  act  as  judge  advocate  in  the  trial 
of  Major  Haddock  and  no  other  person.  All  that  Mr.  Conkling  could 
do  in  respect  to  other  persons  than  Major  Haddock  would  be  to  prefer 
charges  or  proofs  against  others  besides  Major  Haddock,  and  then  it 
would  require  the  order  of  the  department  detailing  this  or  some  other 
court  of  which  he  might  or  might  not  be  a  member  as  judge  ad\  ocate, 
for  the  purpose  of  bringing  those  cases  to  trial.  Mr.  Conkling  could 
put  nobody  on  trial,  except  by  the  special  order  of  the  department." 

No  evidence  was  given  before  the  committee  tending  to  show  any 
direct  effort  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Conkling  to  prevent  the  prosecution  of 
any  one  in  Utica  or  elsewhere,  and  the  inquiry  was  therefore  narrowed 
to  the  question  whether  he  had  in  any  manner  neglected  to  communi 
cate  to  the  department  information  which  he  ought  to  have  given  in 
relation  to  frauds  upon  the  government,  and  especially  whether  he  had 
neglected  to  do  so  because  such  information  would  have  been  used 
against  particular  individuals  or  persons  living  in  Utica  district.  In 
the  inquiry  upon  this  point  the  testimony  was  confined,  by  the  ruling 
of  the  committee,  to  the  single  fact  whether  frauds  existed  which  had 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  Mr  Conkling,  and  which  he  had  not  made 
known  to  the  department.  Evidence  offered  in  relation  to  alleged 
frauds  in  the  Utica  district,  of  which  Mr.  Conkling  was  not  shown  to 
have  had  any  knowleJge  was  not  received  by  the  committee;  nor  was 
evidence  received  in  relation  to  matters  concerning  which  full  infor 
mation  had  been  given  to  the  government;  the  committee  believing 
that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  War  Department  to  determine  what  prose 
cutions  should  be  instituted  when  the  facts  were  within  the  knowledge  of 
the  department,  and  that  Mr.  Conkling  discharged  his  whole  duty  in 
that  behalf  when  the  information  which  he  had  himself  received  had 
been  communicated  to  the  War  Department. 

It  is  true  that  considerable  evidence  has  been  incorporated  in  the 
record  which  would  have  been  excluded  by  a  strict  adherence  to  the 
rule  adopted  by  the  committee.  This  has  arisen  from  the  fact  that 
much  of  the  testimony  was  taken  while  the  House  was  in  session,  and 


248 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


by  different  members  of  the  committee,  not  having  leave  to  sit  during 
the  sessions  of  the  House  and  it  was  consequently  impossible  for  the 
members  of  the  committee  taking  the  testimony  to  understand  the  pre 
cise  connexion  of  the  testimony  offered  with  that  which  had  been  taken 
by  some  other  member  of  the  committee,  and  it  was  deemed  best  to  be 
more  careful  not  to  exclude  any  evidence  from  the  record  that  mij:ht 
possibly  be  pertinent  to  the  subject-matter  of  inquiry,  than  not  to 
admit  any  that  might  be  wholly  irrelevant. 

The  specifications  given  in  General  Fry's  letter,  under  the  charge 
that  ' '  as  hereafter  shown,  Mr.  Conkling  was  as  zealous  in  preventing 
prosecutions  atUticaashe  was  in  making  them  at  Elmira, "  are  as  fol 
lows  : 

' '  That  Mr.  Conkling  complained  both  to  the  President  and  to  the 
War  Department  of  the  action  of  General  Fry  in  the  removal  of  Cap 
tain  Richardson  (the  first  provost  marshal  of  Mr.  Conkling' s  district), 
upon  a  report  of  Judge  Advocate  Turner  that  the  proofs  in  his  case  dis 
closed  a  reckless  persistence  in  fraudulent  practices. 

<k  The  second  issue  was  as  to  the  testimony  [restoring]  of  Captain 
Crandall,  after  I  had  secured  his  removal  from  duty  on  the  recommen 
dation  of  Major  Luddington,  [Ludington]  who  thoroughly  inspected  tbe 
district,  and  reported  that,  though  not  legally  guilty,  he  had  morally 
perpetrated  [a]  most  glaring,  [and]  inexcusable  fraud  on  the  govern 
ment,  [he  was  swo?'n  to  aervc\  and  that  he  had  quieted  his  conscience  by 
casuistry  and  regulated  his  actions  by  the  counsel  of  unscrupulous  legal 
advisers.  Mr.  Conkling  failed  to  get  Captain  Crandall  restored. 

' '  The  third  issue  was  as  to  the  government' s  employing  counsel 
to  defend  Captain  Crandall  after  he  had  been  relieved,  and  had  carried 
with  him,  in  violation  of  the  orders  of  the  department,  some  twenty 
thousand  dollars  local  bounty  deposited  with  him  in  behalf  of  recruits, 
and  in  regard  to  which  he  got  into  litigation.  In  this  Mr.  Conkling 
failed." 

The  words  ' '  as  hereafter  shown, ' '  as  they  appear  in  connexion  in 
General  Fry's  letter,  that  Mr.  Conkling  was  as  zealous  "in  preventing 
prosecutions  at  Utica  as  in  making  them  at  Elmira, "  must  refer  to  the 
three  specifications  above  given,  because,  unless  shown  in  one  or  the 
other  of  those  specifications,  it  is  not  shown  at  all  in  General  Fry's 
letter  that  Mr.  Conkling  was  zealous  "in  preventing  prosecutions  at 
Utica,"  or  that  "  he  wanted  concealment  there."  It  was  contended 
before  the  committee  that  these  words,  "  as  hereafter  shown,"  limited 
the  charges  against  Mr.  Conkling  to  the  three  specifications  above  given. 
If  this  be  so,  the  specifications  signally  fail  to  bear  out  the  charge 
made.  In  the  case  of  Captain  Richardson  it  was  not  the  duty  of  Mr. 
Conkling  to  have  reported  his  case  to  the  government,  for  the  reason 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  24U 

that  the  government  already  had  a  full  report  of  the  casp  from  Judge 
Advocate  Turner,  and  it  was  for  the  department,  and  not  Mr.  Conk 
ling,  to  determine  what  action  should  be  taken  thereon,  and  because, 
several  months  before  the  appointment  of  Mr,  Conkling  to  investigate 
frauds  in  the  western  division  of  New  York,  this  matter  had  been 
placed  in  the  hands  of  William  A.  Dart,  the  United  States  district 
attorney,  who  had  charge  of  the  case  when  Mr.  Conkling  received  his 
appointment.  Mr.  Conkling  manifestly  did  not  attempt  to  prevent  the 
prosecution  of  Caj-tain  Richardson  by  neglecting  to  furnish  information 
which  was  within  his  knowledge  and  not  within  the  knowledge  of  the 
government,  nor  by  neglecting  to  institute  proceedings  against  Rich 
ardson,  because  that  was  a  matter  with  which  he  had  nothing  to  do. 
Did  he  attempt  to  prevent  prosecutions  at  Utica  by  complaining  of  the 
action  of  General  Fry  in  the  removal  of  Captain  Richardson?  The 
facts  are  as  follows : 

December  30,  1864,  Mr.  Conkling  addressed  a  letter  to  the  President 
of  the  United  States,  in  which  the  fact  of  the  removal  of  Captain  Rich 
ardson  is  stated,  and  the  belief  of  the  writer  that  it  had  been  accom 
plished  by  the  efforts  of  Major  Haddock,  in  whom  the  loyal  people  had 
no  confidence,  and  who  was  suspected  of  fraudulent  practices  (which 
suspicion  was  afterwards  sworn  to  have  been  well  founded).     The  let 
ter  refers  to  a  rumor  that  charges  had  been  made  against  Captain  Eich- 
ardson,  based,   as  the  letter  states,   upon  affidavits  prepared  by  those 
whose  character  does  not  raise  a  presumption  in  favor  of  their  motives. 
And  then  the  writer  says:    "  Of  course  I  have  nothing  to  say  as  to  the 
truth  of  the  charges,   if  there  are  charges,  as  I  do  not  know  what  they 
are.     I  ought,  however,  to  say  that  in  common  with  others  I  have  kept 
a  pretty  close  watch  upon  Captain  Richardson,  and  that  I  have  never 
discovered  any  corrupt  practices  in  him.     But  the  point  I  wish  to  sub 
mit  is  his  being  thus  summarily  disgraced  without  knowledge  of  the 
ground  and  without  his  being  heard. ' '     The  letter  states  that  the  super 
visors  through  whom  the  men  have  been  raised  had  signed  and  lodged 
with  the  writer  an  earnest  protest  against  the  proceedings.     No  com 
plaint  ij  made  in  the  letter  against  General  Fry  by  name,  or  by  special 
reference.     The  letter  referred  to  was  written  by  Mr.   Conkling,  and 
the  concurrence  of  the  following  eminent  citizens  of  that  district  was 
indorsed  thereon:  Hon.  W.  J.  Bacon,  Ellis  H.  Roberts,   Hon.  Ward 
Hunt,  Erastus  Clark,  T.  R.  Walker,  and  C.   H.  Hopkins.     The  com 
mittee  have  failed  to  discover  any  evidence  of  any  unworthy  or  im 
proper  motive  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Conkling,  or  the  other  gentlemen  con 
curring  in  that  letter,  nor  can  thp  committee  perceive  how  it  is  possible 
to  imagine  that  the  letter  affords  any  indication,  however  remote,  that 
Mr.  Conkling  was  zealous  to  prevent  the  prosecution  of  Mr.  Richardson, 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

or  desirous  of  concealing  his  acts  from  scrutiny.     Indeed,  the  main  ob 
ject  of  the  letter  seems  to  have  been  to  ask  an  investigation. 

In  relation  to  Captain  Crandall  110  concealment  was  possible,  for  the 
reason  that  a  full  report  had  been  made  by  Major  Luddington  [  Ludinffton'} 
before  Mr  Conkling  is  shown  to  have  had  anything  to  say  or  do  in  refer 
ence  to  him ;  and  surely  Mr.  Conkling  could  not  be  in  fault  for  not  prose 
cuting  him,  when,  as  stated  in  Major  Luddington' s\_lM(linyton~\  report,  he 
had  incurred  no  legal  guilt ;  consequently  it  is  not  shown  by  any  evidence 
in  relation  to  Captain  Crandall  that  Mr.  Conkling  was  zealous  in  prevent 
ing  prosecutions  at  Utica,  or  desired  concealment  of  any  frauds  there. 
And  here  the  committee  might  leave  this  matter  of  Captain  Crandall, 
but  it  is  considered  but  just  to  Mr.  Conkling  that  a  true  statement  of 
his  connexion  with  matters  relating  to  Captain  Crandall  should  be  given. 
It  appears  from  the  evidence  of  Hon.  Ward  Hunt  that  Mr.  Crandall 
was  selected  and  recommended  as  a  proper  person  to  succeed  Captain 
Richardson  by  said  Hunt,  Judge  Bacon,  and  other  citizens  of  the  dis 
trict;  that  Mr.  Conkling  refused  to  have  anything  to  do  with  the  selec 
tion  or  designation  of  any  individual  for  that  position.  Judge  Hunt 
testifies  that  "  Mr.  Crandall  was  selected  as  being  an  eminently  honest 
and  upright  man,  and  a  man  of  the  best  reputation  and  character.  It 
was  believed  by  every  one  that  if  there  was  to  be  found  in  the  county 
one  honest  man,  he  was  the  one,  arid  that  the  judgment  of  the  citizens 
of  Oneida  county  is  unanimous  as  to  the  integrity  of  Captain  Crandall." 
This  statement  is  corroborated  by  several  other  witnesses.  No  evidence 
was  offered  before  the  committee  showing,  or  tending  to  show,  that  Mr. 
Crandall  had  been  guilty  of  any  fraud  or  dishonest  practice  which  ever 
came  to  the  knowledge  of  Mr.  Conkling;  and  the  inquiry  in  this  partic 
ular  was  confined  to  that  limit.  The  committee  are  of  opinion  that  the 
evidence  does  not  show  that  Mr.  Conkling  was  guilty  of  any  impropriety 
in  recommending  the  restoration  of  Captain  Crandall  after  Major  Lud 
dington' s  [/Mdi?ifjton]  report,  but  on  the  contrary,  it  does  appear  that  his 
action  was  limited  to  a  simple  expression  of  opinion,  which  opinion  was 
concurred  in  very  generally  by  the  citizens  of  that  district,  and  supported 
by  the  report  of  the  detective  selected  by  General  Fry  to  investigate  the 
acts  of  Captain  Crandall.  It  has  not  been  shown  to  the  committee  that 
General  Fry,  or  any  other  person  believed  that  Captain  Crandall  should 
have  been  prosecuted.  Mr.  Dana  testifies  to  the  statement  of  General 
Fry  that  he  knew  nothing  which  Captain  Crandall  had  done  or  omitted 
which  he  should  not  have  done  or  omitted.  General  Fry,  in  his  letter 
of  November  6,  published  in  the  Globe,  says  that  Captain  Crandall  was 
suspended  from  duty  for  refusing  to  turn  over  the  $20,000  bonds  to  a 
disbursing  officer,  an  act  for  which  he  deserved  110  censure  in  the  opinion 
of  the  committee,  for  the  reasons  herein  stated.  The  letter  of  General  Fry 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  251 

.to  Mr.  Elaine  states  that  Captain  Crandall  was  discharged  on  the  recom 
mendation  of  Major  Luddington,  [Ludinyton]  who  reported  that,  though 
not  legally  guilty,  he  had  morally  perpetrated  a  most  glaring  and  inex 
cusable  fraud  on  the  government  he  was  sworn  to  serve.  The  committee 
have  not  found  in  the  evidence  before  them  any  evidence  of  such  moral 
fraud  on  the  part  of  Captain  Crandall,  and  certainly  no  facts  had  been 
shown  to  be  within  the  knowledge  of  Mr.  Conkling,  in  relation  to  Cap 
tain  Crandall,  which  would  have  rendered  it  improper  for  Mr.  Conkling 
to  have  recommended  his  restoration  to  office. 

An  attempt  was  made  to  show,  by  the  testimony  of  Patrick  J.  Kin- 
ney,  that  when  Aaron  Richardson  was  arrested  at  Utica  he  was  set  at 
liberty  by  the  officers  having  him  in  custody,  after  an  interview  which 
he  had  at  his  own  request  with  Mr.  Conkling.  In  relation  to  this  mat 
ter  it  is  only  necessary  to  say  that  Mr.  Richardson  had  made  important 
disclosures  to  the  government ;  was  a  witness  in  the  prosecution  of  Had 
dock;  that  the  acts  of  Mr.  Conkling  in  relation  to  the  witness  were 
fully  known  to  and  approved 'by  the  Secretary  of  War. 

In  relation  to  the  third  specification  above  stated,  the  facts  are  as 
follows : 

Captain  Crandall  required  Aaron  Richardson,  a  bounty  broker,  to 
deposit  security  with  him  that  certain  men  furnished  by  said  Richard 
son,  and  enlisted,  should  go  forward  to  the  front  and  be  there  receipted, 
and  the  sum  of  $20,000  in  bonds  of  Oneida  county  was  deposited  as  such 
security.  Some  men  that  were  furnished  by  Richardson  refused  to 
receive  any  local  bounty  whatever,  insisting  that  all  they  claimed  or 
desired  was  the  bounty  that  government  paid  others ;  they  took  fifty 
dollars  and  would  take  no  more.  In  all  of  those  cases  the  right  of  the 
recruit  to  receive  the  local  bounty  was  fully  explained  to  him  by  Cap 
tain  Crandall.  But  as  a  precaution  against  desertion,  Captain  Crandall 
required  Richardson  to  deposit  five  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  for  each 
man,  as  security  for  receipt  of  the  recruit  at  the  general  rendezvous. 

After  depositing  the  bonds,  Richardson  claimed  that  Provost  Marshal 
Crandall  had  no  legal  authority  to  require  security  for  the  appearance 
of  the  recruit,  and  demanded  that  the  bonds  should  be  refunded  to  him. 
Of  the  men  furnished  by  Richardson,  thirty-one  deserted  before  reach 
ing  the  front,  seven  of  whom  were  retaken. 

These  bonds  were  not  "  local  bounty,"  nor  were  they  "  deposited 
in  behalf  of  recruits,"  as  stated  in  General  Fry's  letter.  They  either 
belonged  to  Richardson,  who  deposited  them,  or  to  the  government, 
for  whose  security  they  were  deposited.  Hon.  Ward  Hunt  testifies  that 
' '  about  $13,000  would  have  been  forfeited  under  the  contract,  about  that 
amount  of  men  having  deserted.  About  $7, 000  no  one  would  have  any 
claim  to  as  against  Aaron  Richardson." 


252  OONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY 

On  the  4th  of  March,  1865,  Major  Haddock  directed  Captain  Cran- 
dall  to  turn  over  those  bonds  to  S.  Floyd  Hoard,  special  agent.  Cap 
tain  Crandall  sought  the  advice  of  distinguished  and  able  counsel,  and 
was  told  he  could  not  safely  turn  over  these  bonds  to  Major  Had 
dock  without  risk  of  being  held  personally  responsible  for  the  amount; 
and  it  also  appears  that  Captain  Crandall  and  his  advisers  had  grave  ap 
prehensions,  since  shown  to  have  been  well  founded,  that  it  would  be  un 
safe  to  have  placed  the  bonds  in  the  possession  of  Major  Haddock.  After 
taking  counsel  on  the  llth  of  March,  Captain  Crandall  stated  the  whole 
matter  in  relation  to  those  bonds  fully  in  a  letter  to  General  Fry,  and 
asks  General  Fry  to^advise  him  what  to  do,  as  follows :  ' '  Major  Haddock 
calls  upon  me  to  forward  the  money  and  securities  to  him ;  counsel  of 
high  standing  advise  me  that  I  cannot  safely  do  so,  but  that  I  am  re 
sponsible  to  the  parties  entitled  to  it.  The  money  and  securities  are 
now  on  hand,  and  I  wish  nothing  so  much  as  to  pay  them  over.  Can 
I  safely  pay  this  money  to  Major  Haddock,  and  will  the  government 
protect  me  against  the  persons  who  claim  it?  Be  pleased  to  instruct 
me  on  this  point." 

No  answer  was  made  by  General  Fry  so  far  as  the  committee  can 
discover.  On  the  30th  of  March,  1865,  General  Fry  ordered  Captain 
Crandall  to  turn  over  to  Major  Lee  all  moneys,  bonds,  and  other  evi 
dences  of  indebtedness  in  his  possession  ' '  belonging  to  enlisted  men  ' ' 
who  had  deserted  either  before  or  after  arriving  at  the  general  rendez 
vous,  and  all  moneys,  bonds,  and  other  evidences  of  indebtedness  in 
his  possession  belonging  to  enlisted  men  other  than  deserters  to  the 
United  States  paymaster  stationed  at  Elmira.  It  will  be  seen  that  this 
order  did  not  include  the  $20,000  of  bonds,  which  were  not  claimed  to 
belong  to  enlisted  men,  whether  deserters  or  others.  It  does  appear 
clearly  that  Captain  Crandall  never  claimed  any  right  to  hold  these 
bonds  on  his  own  account ;  that  he  was  anxious  to  be  rid  of  them,  and 
only  sought  to  protect  himself  from  liability;  that  he  deposited  the 
bonds  in  a  bank  in  Utica,  and  that  when  suit  was  brought  against  him 
for  the  bonds,  he  advised  General  Fry  of  the  fact,  stating  that  he  had 
no  interest  in  defending  the  suit,  and  asking  that  the  government 
should  defend  its  right  to  the  tonds.  The  government  never  having 
done  this,  the  county  of  Oneida  has  given  to  Captain  Crandall  proper 
security  to  indemnify  him,  and  assumed  the  defence  of  the  suit.  These 
bonds  belonged  unquestionably  either  to  Aaron  Richardson  or  to  the 
government.  If  they  belonged  to  Richardson,  it  is  not  easy  to  see  why 
the  complaint  should  be  made  that  Captain  Crqnd^ll  had  violated  the 
orders  of  the  department  in  not  turning  over  the  bonds  to  Major  Had 
dock  or  Major  Lee,  leaving  himself  liable  to  Richardson  for  this 
amount.  If  they  belonged  to  the  government,  it  is  still  more  difficult 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  253 

to  see  why  the  government  should  not  have  employed  counsel  and  pro 
tected  its  right  to  them.  The  defence  of  that  suit  was  in  no  sense  a 
defence  of  Captain  Crandall,  but  simply  the  maintenance  by  the  gov 
ernment  of  its  right  to  the  bonds.  Captain  Crandall  having  been  re 
moved  from  office,  and  having  no  interest  in  the  question,  it  seems 
absurd  to  require  or  expect  him  to  defend,  at  his  own  expense,  a 
suit  which  could  not  benefit  or  harm  him,  however  it  might  be  de 
cided. 

The  committee  regard  the  action  of  Mr.  Conkling,  in  directing  the 
attention  of  the  department  to  the  condition  of  this  fund  and  the  mani 
fest  danger  of  its  loss  to  the  government,  as  highly  commendable. 
Nor  have  the  committee  been  able  to  discover  anything  improper  in  the 
conduct  of  Captain  Crandall  in  relation  to  these  bonds.  There  is  one 
other  statement  in  the  letter  of  General  Fry  that  comes  within  the  limit 
of  the  present  investigation,  (to  wit,  the  charges  against  Mr.  Conk- 
ling;)  that  statment  is  as  follows:  "  If  while  acting  as  judge  advo 
cate  under  the  extraordinary  inquisitorial  powers  bestowed  upon  him 
by  his  friend,  Mr.  Dana,  he  came  into  [the]  possession  of  any  fact 
impugning  [or  impeaching]  my  integrity  as  a  public  officer,  he 
was  guilty  of  gross  [grave]  public  wrong  and  unfaithfulness  if 
he  did  not  instantly  file  formal  charges  against  me  with  the  Sec 
retary  of  War.  He  can  therefore  only  escape  the  charges  [charge] 
of  deliberate  and  malignant  falsehood  as  a  member  of  Congress 
by  confessing  an  unpardonable  breach  of  duty  as  judge  advocate." 
No  powers  whatever,  ' '  extraordinary  and  inquisitorial ' '  or  other 
wise,  were  bestowed  upon  Mr.  Conkling  by  Mr.  Dana ;  whatever  pow 
ers  he  had  were  given  him  by  the  Secretary  of  War,  and  not  at  the  sug 
gestion  of  Mr.  Dana.  Mr.  Conkling  was  discharging  the  duties  of 
judge  advocate  only  in  the  prosecution  of  Major  Haddock.  He  had 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  filing  charges  against  General  Fry.  To 
this  point  the  committee  cite  the  testimony  of  the.  Secretary  of  War 
as  follows:  ' '  In  the  prosecution  of  Major  Haddock  to  final  judgment, 
Mr.  Conkling  performed  all  the  duty  I  expected  him  to  perform;"  and 
also  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Dana,  as  follows :  "I  never  knew  of  any 
authority  given  to  Mr.  Conkling  in  any  form,  directly  or  indirectly,  at 
any  time,  to  investigate  the  acts  of  General  Fry,  or  to  file  charges 
against  him.  It  would  have  been  evidently  improper  for  him  to  file 
charges  against  General  Fry,  according  to  the  usages  of  the  department. ' ' 

ACCUSATIONS  AS  TO  DOUBLE  OFFICES  AND  IMPROPER  FEES. 

Another  of  the  statements  of  General  Fry's  letter  which  the  com 
mittee  are  directed  to  inquire  into  is  in  these  words : 

'•  For  his  services  in  this  connexion,  Mr.  Conkling  received,  on  the 


254 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


9th  of  November  last,  from  the  United  States  the  modest  fee  of  $3,000. 
Whether  he  received,  as  it  has  been  reported,  from  his  district  $5.000 
more  for  the  same  service,  and  whether  he  received  additional  fees 
from  guilty  parties  for  opposing  proceedings  at  Utica,  I  am  unable  now 
to  say.". 

This  is  asserted  in  connexion  with  and  after  the  sUtement  that 
' '  In  the  summer  of  1863  Mr.  Conkling  made  a  case  for  himself  by  tel 
egraphing  to  the  War  Department  that  the  provost  marshal  of  his  dis 
trict  required  legal  advice,  which  he  was  thereupon  empowered  to 
give." 

The  effect  of  this  statement  is  an  insinuation  that  the  employment 
of  Mr.  Conkling  in  this  prosecution  was  by  him  improperly  secured ; 
that  the  amount  of  his  compensation  by  tlie  government  was  excessive, 
and  that  there  was  some  reason  to  believe  that  his  district  had  paid  him, 
besides  the  fee  from  the  government,  for  the  same  service,  five  thousand 
dollars;  and,  besides  this,  that  he  had  been  compensated  by  guilty 
men  for  corrupt  services  which  he  had  rendered  them  in  opposing  the 
prosecutions  which  he  had  been  employed  to  make. 

The  charge  is  not  mitigated  in  its  severity  by  the  fact  that  it  only 
insinuates,  and  seeks  for  its  author  the  cover  of  alleged  report.  These 
features  only  give  to  it  the  enhanced  capacity  for  mischief  which 
grows  out  of  the  increased  difficulty  of  disproving  what  is  only 
vaguely  charged,  instead  of  being  stated  with  definiteness  as  to  time, 
place,  and  circumstances.  The  committee  can  find,  in  all  that  has 
come  to  their  knowledge,  absolutely  nothing  which  can  furnish  a  pre 
text  for  that  part  of  this  charge  which  relates  to  the  five  thousand  dol 
lars  and  the  fee  from  guilty  parties  — not  even  the  existence  of  any  such 
report  as  the  charge  alludes  to.  The  accusation  insinuated  is  not  only 
utterly  false  in  fact,  false  in  each  particular,  both  as  to  the  live  thou 
sand  dollars  from  the  district,  and  that  from  guilty  parties,  but,  so  far 
as  proof  could  be  found,  it  was  false  in  the  most  insufficient  apology  for 
its  utterance,  to  wit,  the  existence  of  an  alleged  report  giving  it  cre 
dence.  No  accusation  can  well  be  conceived  more  intensely  hurtful 
than  the  last  part  of  this  one  is.  To  say  of  any  one  that  he  is  sordid 
or  voracious  in  his  methods  of  getting  gain,  is  to  deny  to  him  most  of 
the  qualities  of  a  gentleman.  To  add  to  this  that  he  gets  money  by 
ordinary  frauds,  is  to  exclude  him  from  all  just  title  to  the  common 
rights  of  civil  and  social  life.  To  add,  again,  that  his  frauds  were  as 
sociated  with  compounding  of  felonies,  and  his  gains  the  price  of  their 
concealment,  is  to  stamp  the  accused  with  an  ineffable  infamy.  But 
if  to  all  this  you  add  that  he  who  is  charged  with  taking  the  price  of 
the  suppressed  crime  is  one  of  the  members  elect  of  his  government, 
and  as  such  charged  with  its  safety ;  that,  in  addition,  he  had  assumed 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-PRY    CONTROVERSY.  255 

special  duties  as  to  the  prosecution  of  the  very  crimes  for  the  alleged 
suppression  of  which  he  has  taken  pay ;  and  that  the  crime  suppressed 
was  at  least  a  moral  treason  against  the  government  of  which  he  was 
an  officer  elect,  and  a  treason,  too,  committed  at  a  time  when  his  gov 
ernment's  existence  was  in  deepest  peril;  when,  we  say,  all  these  ele 
ments  combine  in  the  accusation,  the  guilt  charged  assumes  a  depth  of 
turpitude  which  can  hardly  find  a  parallel.  That  such  a  charge  should, 
without  any  shadow  of  cause,  be  made,  in  any  way,  seems  almost  in 
credible.  But  that  it  should  be  carefully  couched  in  the  forms  of  in 
sinuation,  showing  timidity  and  solicitude  in  the  author  to  avoid  re 
sponsibility,  and  should  then  be  written  out  and  sent  into  Congress,  to 
be  read  in  the  presence  of  the  nation,  and  preserved  against  the  accused 
and  his  children  in  the  history  of  Congress,  presents,  as  a  libel,  a  case 
almost  new— certainly  singular  — for  its  bad  eminence  as  a  wanton  and 
inexcusable  violation  of  the  rights  of  a  citizen  and  member  of  the  gov 
ernment. 

The  use  that  was  made  in  the  House  of  that  part  of  this  charge  re 
lating  to  the  fee  of  $3,000  makes  it  due  to  Mr.  Conkling  that  it  should 
be  determined  whether  his  being  a  member  elect  of  this  house  rendered 
it  improper  or  illegal  for  him  to  take  the  employment  or  its  compensa 
tion;  and  the  insinuation  contained  in  this  statement  that  the  fee  was 
excessive  renders  it  proper  to  inquire  whether  it  was  such.  As  to  the 
latter  point,  the  committee  had  no  hesitation  in  coming  to  the  conclu 
sion  that  Mr.  Conkling' s  compensation  for  services  rendered  to  I  he 
government  was  a  reasonable  one.  He  had  nothing  to  do  with  fixing 
its  amount.  That  was  left  wholly  to  the  government.  He  accepted 
the  service  with  reluctance,  and  upon  the  most  pressing  and  repeated 
solicitations  of  the  Secretary  of  War.  He  took  it  at  the  sacrifice  of 
other  professional  business  of  equal  value,  or  of  perhaps  greater  value 
to  him  than  he  realized  for  this.  He  took  it  at  a  time  when  it  was 
almost  vital  to  the  interests  of  the  military  service  in  New  York  that 
they  should  be  rendered.  The  committee  are  of  opinion  that  the  Sec 
retary  of  War  rightly  judged  that  no  one  could  be  found  more  emi 
nently  qualified  on  all  accounts  for  the  efficient  discharge  of  that  pecul 
iar  service,  under  the  peculiar  circumstances  in  which  it  was  under 
taken  and  rendered.  The  duties  he  assumed  were  discharged  with 
consummate  ability,  and  with  integrity,  diligence,  and  complete  suc 
cess.  They  went  through  about  five  months.  They  involved  the  examin 
ation  of  a  large  field  of  complicated  facts ;  a  labyrinth  of  frauds  and  vil- 
ianies.  The  record  of  the  trial  makes  some  fifteen  hundred  pages  of 
matter,  and  resulted  not  only  in  discovering  and  punishing  these  crimes 
against  the  government,  but  also  in  the  conviction  and  punishment  of 
the  acting  provost  marshal  general  of  western  New  York,  Major  Haddock, 


256  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

and  in  the  recovery  from  him  of  a  fine  of  $10,000,  paid  into  the 
United  States  treasury,  besides  the  further  sum  of  over  $200,000, 
which  he  was  constrained  to  pay  over  after  the  commencement  of  the 
prosecution. 

The  committee  have  come  unanimously  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
conduct  of  Mr.  Conkling,  in  entering  upon  that  service,  and  in  its 
management  throughout,  was  not  only  free  from  any  improper,  selfish, 
or  unpatriotic  motives,  and  from  all  just  grounds  of  reproach,  but  his 
services  were  singularly  able,  faithful,  and  in  results  valuable  to  the 
government. 

THE  LAW. 

The  only  other  question  touching  this  part  of  the  matter  referred  to 
the  committee  to  be  considered  is,  whether  there  was  any  legal  imped 
iment  in  the  way  of  Mr.  Conkling,  he  being  a  member  elect  of  the  39th 
Congress,  assuming  the  relation  he  did  assume  to  the  prosecution  of 
Haddock.  The  committee  have  sought  carefully  to  inquire  whether 
there  was  any  such  legal  impediment. 

RIGHT  OF  DEPARTMENTS  TO  EMPLOY  AND  PAY  AGENTS. 

In  determining  upon  this  question,  it  seems  perfectly  safe  to  as 
sume  that  what  is  said  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  in 
Gratiot  vs.  United  States,  15  Peters,  371,  is  the  settled  law  applicable 
to  this  class  of  cases,  to  wit,  that  • '  a  department  charged  with  the  ex 
ecution  of  particular  authority,  business,  or  duty,  has  always  been 
deemed  incidentally  to  possess  the  right  to  employ  the  proper  persons  to 
perform  the  same. "  *  *  *  k '  And  also  the  right,  when  the  service 
or  duty  is  an  extra  service  or  duty,  to  allow  the  person  so  employed  a 
suitable  compensation. "  "This  doctrine  is  not  new,"  says  the  Su 
preme  Court,  ' '  but  is  fully  expounded  in  the  cases  of  The  United 
States  m.  Riley,  7  Peters  18,  and  The  United  States  vs.  Fillebrown,  7 
Peters.  28."  And  the  court  adds :  ' '  that  in  order  to  justify  a  refusal 
to  allow  such  compensation,  it  is  indispensable  to  show  that  there  is  some 
law  which  positively  prohibits,  or  by  just  implication  denies,  any  al 
lowance  of  such  compensation."  This  was  said  by  the  court  in  a 
case  where  it  was  an  officer  of  the  United  States  who  was  claiming  the 
compensation  for  services  outside  of  his  salary. 

THE  PROHIBITIONS. 

We  assume,  then,  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  general  relations  of  a 
member  elect  of  Congress  to  his  government,  nor  in  the  general  princi 
ples  of  the  law  growing  out  of  that  relation,  which  would  forbid  Mr. 
Conkling  becoming  the  agent  or  attorney  of  the  government,  and  re 
ceiving  compensation  therefor;  and  that  if  his  relations  to  the  Had 
dock  trial  were  illegal,  it  must  be  owing  to  some  express  provision  of 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-PRY    CONTROVERSY.  257 

the  Constitution  or  of  the  law.  Is  there  any  such  legal  prohibition? 
The  legal  provisions  which  have  been  brought  to  the  attention  of  the 
committee,  and  which  are  supposed  to  have  some  bearing  upon  the 
question  of  the  legality  of  Mr.  Conkling's  relations  to  the  Haddock 
trial,  and  his  compensation  therefor,  are  the  following: 

1.  The  Constitution  (Art.  1,  Sec.  VI.)  declares  that  "No  person 
holding  an  office  under  the  United  States  shall  be  a  member  of   either 
House  during  his  continuance  in  office. ' ' 

2.  The  18th  section  of  the   act   of   31st   August,   1852  (1  Bright 
ly,  821),  provides  that  "  No  person  hereafter  who  holds  or  shall  hold 
any  office  under  the  government  of  the  United  States,  whose  salary  or 
annual  compensation  shall  amount  to  the  sum  of  two  thousand  five 
hundred  dollars,  shall  receive  compensation  for  discharging  the  duty 
of  any  other  office." 

3.  The  3d  section  of  the  act  of  3d  March,  1839  (5  United  States  Stat 
utes,  349,  and  1  Brightly,  820),  which  reads  as  follows:      '  No  officer 
in  any  branch  of  the  public  service,  or  any  otherperson,  whose  salaries, 
or  whose  pay  or  emoluments  is  or  are  fixed  by  law  or  regulations,  shall 
receive  any  extra  allowance  or  compensation  in  any  form  whatever  for 
the  disbursements  of  public  money  or  the  performance  of  any  other  ser 
vice,  unless  the  said  extra  allowance  or  compensation  be  authorized  by 
law." 

4.  The  2d  section  of  the  act  of  23d  August.  1842  (5  United  -States 
Statutes,  510,  and  1  Brightly,  820),  which  reads  as  follows:    "No  offi 
cer  in  any  branch  of  the  public  service,   or  any  other  person,  whose 
salary,  pay,  or  emoluments  is  or  are  fixed  by  law  or  regulations,  shall 
receive  any  additional  pay,  extra  allowance  or  compensation  in  any 
form  whatever  for  the  disbursements  of  public  money  or  other   service 
or  duty  whatever,  unless  the  same  shall  be  authorized  by  law,  and 
the  appropriation  therefor  explicitly  set  forth  that  it  is  for  such  addi 
tional  pay,  extra  allowance,  or  compensation." 

5.  The  12th  section  of  the  act  of  26th  August,  1842  (1  Brightly,  821, 
5  United  States  Statutes,  525),  which  reads  as  follows :    "No  allowance 
or  compensation  shall  be  made  to  any  clerk  or  other  officer  by  reason  of 
the  discharge  of  the  duties  which  belong  to  any  other  clerk  or  officer  in 
the  same  or  any  other  department ;  and  no  allowance  or  compensation 
shall  be  made  for  any  extra  service  whatever  which  any  clerk  or  other 
officer  may  be  required  to  perform." 

6.  The  1st  section  of  the  act  of  30th  of  September,  1850  (1  Brightly, 
821,    9  United  States  Statutes,  542),  which  reads   as  follows:    "The 
proper  accounting  officer  of  the  treasury,  or  other  pay  officers  of  the 
United  States,  shall  in  no  case  allow  or  pay  to  one  individual  the  sal 
aries  of  two  different  offices  on  account  of  having  performed  the  duties 


258  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

thereof  at  the  same  time.     But  this  prohibition  shall  not  extend  to  the 
superintendents  of  the  public  buildings." 

7.  The  1st  section  of  the  act  of  April  21,  1808  (1  Brightly,  190,  and 
2  United  States  Statutes,  484),  which  reads  as  follows:   "  No  member 
of  Congress  shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  himself,  or  by  any  other  per 
son  whatsoever  in  trust  for  him,  or  for  his  use  or  benefit,  or  on  his  ac 
count,  undertake,  execute,  hold,  or  enjoy,  in  whole  or  in  part,  any  con 
tract  or  agreement  hereafter  to  be  made  or  entered  into  with  any  officer 
of  the  United  States  in  their  behalf,  or  with  any  person  authorized  to 
make  contracts  on  the  part  of  the  United  States ;  and  if  any  member 
of  Congress  shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  himself,  or  by  any  other  per 
son  whatsoever  in  trust  for  him,  or  for  his  use  or  benefit,  or  on  his  ac 
count,  enter  into,  accept,  or  agree  for  or  undertake  or  execute  any  such  con 
tract  or  agreement,   in  whole  or  in    part,    every  member  so  offending 
shall,  for  every  such  offence,  upon  conviction  thereof  before  any  court 
of  the  United  States  or  the  Territories  thereof  having  cognizance  of 
such  offence,  be  adjudged  guilty  of  a  high  misdemeanor   and  shall  be 
fined  three  thousand  dollars;  and  every  such  contract  or  agreement  as 
aforesaid  shall  moreover  be  absolutely  void  and  of  no  effect. ' ' 

8.  The  1st  section  of  the  act  of  June  11,  1864  (2  Brightly,  105,  and 
13  United  States  Statutes,  123),  which  reads  as  follows:    "  No  member 
of  the  Senate  or  House  of  Representatives  shall,  after  his  election  and 
during  his  continuance  in  office,  nor  shall  any  head  of   a  department, 
head  of  a  bureau,  clerk,  or  other  officer  of  the  government,  receive  or 
agree  to  receive  any  compensation  whatsoever,   directly  or  indirectly, 
for  any  services  rendered  or  to  be  rendered,  after  the  passage  of  this 
act,  to  any  person,  either  by  himself  or  another,  in  relation  to  any  pro 
ceeding,  contract,  claim,  controversy,  charge,    accusation,    arrest,  or 
other  matter  or  thing  in  which  the  United  States  is  a  party,  or  directly 
or  indirectly  interested,  before  any  department,  court-martial,  bureau, 
officer,  or  any  civil,  military,  or  naval  commission  whatever;  and  any 
person  offending  against  the  provisions  of  this  act  shall,  on  conviction 
thereof,  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdeameanor,  and  be  punished  by  a  fine 
not  exceeding  ten  thousand  dollars,  and  by  imprisonment  for  a  term 
not  exceeding  two  years,  at  the  discretion  of  the  court  trying  the  same, 
and  shall  be  forever  thereafter  incapable  of  holding  any  office  of  honor 
or  trust  or  profit  under  the  government  of  the  United  States. ' ' 

THE   CONSTITUTIONAL   PROHIBITION. 

These  are  all  of  the  existing  laws  which  have  come  to  the  attention 
of  the  committee,  and  which  are  supposed  to  contain  anything  bearing, 
either  nearly  or  remotely,  upon  the  matter  of  this  service  of  Mr.  Conk- 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  259 

ling  being  prohibited  by  law.     There  are  other  laws  which  bear  upon 
other  points  in  this  inquiry,  which  will  be  alluded  to. 

With  these  provisions  of  the  Constitution  and  law  before  us,  and 
assuming  as  law  that  which  we  have  above  stated  from  the  case  of 
Gratiot  vs.  The  United  States  (15  Peters,  371),  we  inquire  whether  any 
of  these  provisions  of  express  law  do  away  with  that  general  principle 
as  applicable  to  the  matter  before  the  committee;  or  whether  either  of 
these  provisions  prohibit  or  render  illegal  what  was  done  by  Mr.  Conk- 
ling  in  the  Haddock  trial,  he  being  a  member  elect  of  the  39th  Con 
gress. 

To  avoid,  if  we  can.  confusion,  we  first  consider  this  without  ref 
erence  to  the  question  whether  Mr.  Conkling  should  be  paid,  as  a  mem 
ber  of  the  39th  Congress,  for  the  same  time  covered  by  his  service  in  the 
Haddock  trial,  and  for  which  time  it  is  suggested  he  was  paid  by  the 
fee  of  three  thousand  dollars,  and  let  the  inquiry  be  first  disposed  of 
whether  it  was  illegal  for  Mr.  Conkling  to  assume  that  service  and  to 
take  compensation  therefor. 

And,  in  disposing  of  this  inquiry,  let  it  first  be  granted  that  Mr. 
Conkling,  in  what  occurred  in  that  service,  became  and  was  a  '  'judge 
advocate, ' '  in  the  strictest  sense,  and  that  he  was  thereby  made  an 
officer  of  the  United  States,  and  was  not  a  mere  agent  and  counsel  of 
the  government. 

In  entering  upon  this  inquiry,  the  committee  do  not  forget  the 
truth  nor  the  supreme  importance  of  that  principle  of  our  government 
which  was  pressed  upon  the  attention  of  the  committee  in  the  argu 
ment  of  this  case,  and  which  received,  during  the  38th  Congress,  the 
sanction  of  this  House  in  its  approval  of  the  report  in  the  cases  of  Rob 
ert  C.  Schenck  and  of  Francis  P.  Blair.  The  principle  to  which  we 
allude  is  thus  stated  in  that  report : 

"  Nothing  is  plainer  in  the  theory  and  plan  of  this  government 
than  the  distinct  and  separate  organization  of  the  executive,  judicial, 
and  legislative  departments,  and  the  sedulous  care  with  which  each 
has  been  clothed  and  guarded  in  the  exercise  of  duties  entirely  in 
dependent  of  the  others.  Yet  the  attempt  to  invest  the  same  person 
with  two  offices,  one  legislative  and  the  other  executive,  and  require  of 
him  at  the  same  time  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  both,  is,  whether  they 
be  conflicting  or  not,  a  commingling  of  the  duties  of  the  executive  and 
legislative  departments.  It  is  bringing  the  Executive  himself  into 
the  very  halls  of  Congress,  and  if  persisted  in,  might  ultimately  prove 
as  pernicious  as  if  he  had  a  seat  therein,  and  as  many  votes  as  he  had 
commissions.  If  one  representative  in  Congress  may  at  the  same  time 
hold  under  the  Executive  the  office  of  major  general,  so  may  another, 
and  another  may  as  well  be  a  brigadier  general,  or  hold  any  other  offi- 


260  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

cial  position  in  the  military  service  under  the  Executive  and  command- 
er-in-chief,  and  bound  to  obey  him.  By  such  process  the  House  may 
at  any  time  be  put  under  the  control  and  become  the  pliant  instrument 
of  the  Executive  to  any  end.  Its  members  would  cease  to  be  the  rep 
resentatives  of  the  people,  and  become  only  the  agents  of  the  Execu 
tive." 

The  framers  of  the  Constitution  saw  this  so  clearly,  and  felt  the  in 
dependence  of  the  legislative  over  the  executive  department  was  so  es 
sential  and  vital  that  they  deemed  the  inhibition  worthy  of  an  express 
constitutional  enactment,  that  "  no  person  holding  any  office  under  the 
United  States  shall  be  a  member  of  either  House  during  his  continuance 
in  office."  (Art.  1,  sec.  VI.) 

Still,  in  view  of  this  important  principle,  the  committee  have  not 
been  able  to  see  how  the  acceptance  and  discharge  of  the  duties  of  the 
office  of  judge  advocate  by  Mr.  Conkling,  the  duties,  tenure,  and  exist 
ence  of  which  office  (if  such  it  was  in  him)  were  in  their  nature  such 
as  would  most  likely  be,  and  were  in  fact,  wholly  ended  and  gone  be 
fore  he  was,  by  law  or  the  Constitution,  required  to  qualify  as  a  mem 
ber  of  Congress,  or  to  enter  upon,  assume,  or  discharge  any  auty  as 
such,  conflicting  with  these  principles.  Upon  this  subject-matter  the 
committee  deem  the  following  two  propositions  to  be  entirely  settled 
in  our  government:  1.  "The  acceptance  by  a  member  of  any  cffice 
under  the  United  States,  after  he  has  been  elected  to,  and  has  taken  his 
seat  in  Congress,  operates  as  a  forfeiture  of  his  seat. ' '  (See  Van  Ness  case, 
Cl.  and  Hall,  122;  Schenck  and  Blair  case,  38th  Congress,  &c.)  2. 
"  Continuing  to  execute  the  duties  of  an  office  under  the  United  States 
after  one  is  elected  to  Congress,  but  before  he  takes  his  seat,  is  not  a  dis 
qualification,  such  office  being  resigned  or  extinct  prior  to  the  taking  of 
the  seat. ' '  (See  Hammond  vs.  Herrick,  Cl.  and  Hall,  287 ;  Earl's  case, 
ibid.,  314;  Munf ord' a  case,  ibid.,  316;  Schenck  and  Blair's  case,  38th 
Congress,  &c.) 

The  committee  agree  with  the  reasoning  and  conclusions  of  the  re 
port,  from  which  we  have  already  quoted,  that  the  continuance  to  hold 
another  office  after  the  time  when  the  law  and  Constitution  rt  quires 
the  member  elect  to  qualify  and  enter  upon  the  discharge  of  his  duties 
as  a  member,  is,  in  legal  CDntemplation,  an  act  of  election  by  him  to 
vacate  his  office  as  a  member ;  and  such  continuance  to  hold  the  other  of 
fice  is  equivalent,  in  its  legal  significance,  to  the  act  of  accepting  and 
entering  upon  an  office  tendered  after  the  member  was  qualified.  Both 
alike  vacate  the  legislative  office.  The  act,  therefore,  of  Mr.  Conkling 
in  accepting  an  office  not  previously  held,  which,  from  its  nature,  would 
terminate  before  he  would  be  required  to  assume  any  duty  as  a  mem 
ber,  had  no  more  nor  less  effect  in  depriving  him  of  his  right  to  enter 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY  CONTROVERSY.  261 

upon  his  office  as  a  member  of  Congress  than  the  act  of  continuing, 
after  he  was  elected,  to  exercise  the  duties  of  an  office  which  he  had 
previously  entered  upon  would  have.  Neither  operates  to  vacate  his 
seat  in  this  house,  the  first  office  being  such  as  must  be  and  was  wholly 
ended  or  abandoned  before  the  time  comes  when  he  is  required  to  enter 
upon  his  duties  as  a  legislator.  The  act  of  acceptance  of  such  a  tem 
porary  office  at  such  a  time  did  not,  in  its  nature,  indicate  any  election 
or  purpose  to  abandon  or  resign  the  membership  in  Congress.  "  The 
object  of  the  constitutional  prohibition  upon  an  officer  becoming  a 
member  of  Congress  is  attained,  so  far  as  it  can  be,  by  this  provision,  if 
the  inhibition  attaches  the  moment  the  member  enters  upon  the  dis 
charge  of  his  duties  as  such,  and  nothing  is  gained  by  an  earlier  appli 
cation  of  it."  There  was,  therefore,  no  constitutional  objection  to  Mr. 
Conkling's  accepting  this  office  of  judge  advocate, if  he  did  become  such 
officer. 

PROHIBITORY   STATUTES. 

The  acts  of  Congress  above  referred  to,  of  the  dates,  respectively, 
of  March  3,  1839,  and  of  the  23d  and  26th  of  August,  1842,  are,  as  is  said 
by  the  Attorney  General  of  the  United  States  (5  Opins.,  768),  "the 
same  in  their  sense  and  meaning ' '  ;  and  as  to  all  of  these  acts,  includ 
ing  that  of  September  30, 1850,  above  cited,  he  says:  "They  do  not  for 
bid  a  person  from  holding  two  compatible  offices  at  the  same  time. 
They  were  intended  to  prevent  arbitrary  extra  allowances  in  each  par 
ticular  case,  but  do  not  apply  to  distinct  employments  with  salaries  af 
fixed  to  each  by  law  or  regulations."  (See  also  6  Opins.,  80  and 
325.) 

If  the  committee  were  left  to  their  own  construction  of  these  stat 
utes  of  1839,  1842,  and  1850,  we  would  have  attained  the  same 
conclusion  at  which  the  Attorney  General  arrived  in  these  opinions. 
But  when  there  is  added  to  the  force  of  these  and  several  other  equiva 
lent  opinions  by  the  Attorney  General  of  this  government,  the  weight 
of  the  fact  that  all  these  statutes  were  in  force  when  most  of  the  very 
numerous  decisions  by  this  House  were  made,  determining  that  there 
was  nothing  either  illegal  or  unconstitutional  in  a  member  of  Congress 
elect  (but  not  qualified)  holding  an  office  under  the  United  States  gov 
ernment,  provided  he  did  not  hold  it  after  the  time  came  when  the 
Constitution  required  him  to  assume  his  duties  as  a  legislator,  the  com 
mittee  could  not  hesitate  in  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  neither  the 
Conatitution  nor  either  of  these  statutes  alluded  to  in  the  opinion  of  the 
Attorney  General,  were  violated  when  Mr.  Conkling  became  (if  he  did) 
special  judge  advocate,  and  took  compensation  therefor.  We  say 
"  took  compensation  therefor,"  because  in  all  the  cases  we  have  cited 
the  member  elect,  as  the  committee  understand  the  history  of  the  cases, 


262 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


received  his  compensation  for  his  first  office  during  the  time  he  held  it, 
but  not  his  compensation  as  a  member  for  the  same  time. 

THE   STATUTE  AGAINST   JOBBING, 

Although  not  quite  in  proper  order,  it  may  perhaps  as  well  be  said 
here  as  anywhere  else  that  the  committee  do  not  see  what  the  statute  of 
April  21,  1808,  has  to  do  with  this  inquiry.  That  act  renders  it  a  crime 
for  any  member  of  Congress  to  "undertake,  execute,  hold  or  enjoy, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  any  contract  or  agreement,  hereafter  to  be  made  or 
entered  into,  with  any  officer  of  the  United  States,  in  their  behalf,  or 
with  any  person  authorized  to  make  contracts  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States."  No  "contract  "  or  "agreement"  has  been  proved  in  this 
case  between  Mr.  Conkling  and  any  other  person,  coming  within  what 
is  the  obvious  meaning  of  these  words  in  the  act  of  1808.  The  design 
of  that  statute  is  what  is  expressed  by  the  Attorney  General  of  the 
United  States  (4  Opins.,  48)  when  he  says,  "The  object  of  the  statute 
is  only  to  prevent  jobbing  between  members  of  the  legislature  and  the 
Executive  for  the  primary  advantage  of  the  former.' '  Surely  the  prac 
tice  which  has  been  general  and  uninterrupted,  as  must  be  within  the 
personal  knowledge  of  every  intelligent  citizen,  of  members  of  Congress 
acting  as  the  attorneys  of  their  government,  has  not  subjected  all  such 
attorneys  to  indictment  and  fine  of  three  thousand  dollars.  No  one 
has  suggested  that  such  is  the  law,  and  the  committee  would  have  made 
no  allusion  to  it  but  for  the  fact  that  it  is  presented  to  our  consideration 
in  the  brief  of  Mr.  Conkling. 

THE  ACT  PROHIBITING  MEMBERS  BECOMING  CLAIM  AGENTS,  ETC. 

The  act  of  June  11,  1864,  cited  above,  renders  it  a  high  crime  for 
any  member  of  Congress,  at  any  time  after  his  election,  "  to  receive  or 
agree  to  receive  any  compensation  for  any  services  rendered  to  any 
person  in  relation  to  any  proceeding,  contract,  claim,  controversy, 
charge,  accusation,  arrest,  or  other  matter  or  thing  in  which  the  United 
States  is  a  party,  or  interested  directly  or  indirectly,  before  any  depart 
ment,  court-martial,  bureau,  officer,  or  any  civil,  military,  or  naval 
commissioner  whatever." 

This  statute  would  have  been  directly  in  point  had  Mr.  Conkling 
received  compensation  for  being  the  counsel  for  Haddock  in  this  court- 
martial.  The  fact  that  this  recent  statute,  passed  in  full  and  thorough 
ly  intelligent  view  of  all  the  important  questions  of  law,  which  your 
committee  is  required  to  consider,  carefully  confines  its  prohibitions  to 
preventing  members  elect  from  taking  compensation  for  services  ren 
dered  before  courts-martial,  &c.,  "  to  any  person  "  and  against  the  gov 
ernment,  and  does  not  prohibit  such  compensation  being  paid  by  the 
government,  nor  prohibit  such  service  being  rendered  in  its  favor ;  and 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  263 

this,  too,  in  the  identical  cage  before  the  committee,  is  one  of  the  strong 
est  possible  legislative  determinations  of  the  very  question  we  consider. 
Here  is  a  law  which  comes  up  squarely,  face  to  face,  in  front  of  that 
exact  question  we  consider,  to  wit,  whether  a  member  elect  to  Congress 
ought  to  be  permitted  to  receive  compensation  for  services  rendered  to 
either  of  the  parties  to  a  trial  before  a  court-martial,  And  the  Con 
gress  said  it  should  not  be  lawful  for  him  to  take  compensation  for  ser 
vices  rendered  to  one  side — "  any  person  " —  and  now  shall  we  be  told 
that  Congress  meant  to  declare  that  it  was  equally  illegal  to  take  com 
pensation  for  services  rendered  to  the  other  side,  to  wit,  for  services  in 
favor  of  the  United  States  ?  On  the  other  hand,  is  this  not  a  conclu 
sive  legislative  determination  that  a  member  elect  might  be  compen 
sated  for  services  rendered  to  that  other  non-prohibited  side  of  the  case  ? 
It  so  seems  to  the  committee. 

ACT  OP  1852. 

This  disposes  of  all  the  alleged  legal  prohibitions  upon  Mr,  Conk- 
ling's  entering  upon  the  service,  unless  it  be  (and  we  think  including) 
that  supposed  to  be  contained  in  the  18th  section  of  the  act  of  21st  of 
July,  1852,  already  cited,  (1  Brightly,  821,)  and  which  is  as  follows: 
"  No  person  hereafter  who  holds  or  shall  hold  any  office  under  the  gov 
ernment  of  the  United  States,  whose  salary  or  annual  compensation 
shall  amount  to  the  sum  of  two  thousand  five  hundred  dollars,  shall  re 
ceive  compensation  for  discharging  the  duties  of  any  other  office. ' ' 

It  was  suggested  in  the  debates  in  the  House,  and  earnestly  urged 
elsewhere,  that  this  section,  even  if  it  did  not  render  Mr.  Conkling's 
services  upon  the  Haddock  trial  illegal,  does  render  it  illegal  for  him  to 
receive  compensation  for  his  services  upon  that  trial.  The  committee 
is  not  quite  certain  that  the  order  of  the  House  directing  it  to  inquire 
into  the  charges  against  Mr,  Conkling  contained  in  the  letter  of  General 
Fry  to  Mr.  Elaine  admits  of  the  committee's  examining  the  question 
whether  Mr.  Conkling  was  entitled  to  take  that  compensation  of  $3,000. 
That  letter  does  not  charge  that  the  taking  of  any  fee  was  illegal,  but 
only  insinuates  that  it  was  excessive.  Still,  after  what  occurred  touch 
ing  this  double  compensation  in  the  debates  of  the  House,  the  commit 
tee  deem  it  proper  to  examine  this  question  also.  If  it  be  outside  of  the 
duties  of  the  committee,  an  easy  way  of  preventing  mischief  from  this 
part  of  the  report  will  be  to  disregard  it. 

The  determination  of  the  question  whether  this  act  of  1852  renders 
it  illegal  for  Mr,  Conkling  to  receive,  in  addition  to  his  salary  as  a  mem 
ber  of  Congress,  this  $3,000,  requires  the  committee  to  determine  one 
or  more  of  the  following  questions : 

1.     Is  one  who  has  been  elected  to  Congress,  but  who  has  not  yet 


264 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


taken  the  cath  of  office,  nor  in  any  way  enteied  upon  the  discharge  of  the 
duties  of  his  office,  and  prior  to  the  time  when,  by  law,  he  is  required 
to  enter  upon  these  duties,  "  a  person  who  holds  any  office  "  ? 

2.  Granting  that  he  is,  in  the  case  stated  in  the  preceding  ques 
tion,  a  person  holding  an  office}  then  does  he  hold  an  office  "  under 
the  government  of  the  United  States  "  within  the  just  sense  of  this 
section  ? 

3.  If  he,  as  a  member  elect,  is  an  officer  "  under  the  government 
of  the  United  States,"  then  did  Mr,  Coukling,  in  what  he  did  in  the 
Haddock  service,  become  an  officer  of  the  United  States  ? 

4.  If  he  did  not  become  an  officer  of  the  United  States,  did  he,  in 
that  Haddock  trial,  discharge  "  the  duties  of  any  other  office  "  and  re 
ceive  compensation  therefor? 

IS  A  MEMBER  ELECT  ONE  HOLDING  OFFICE? 

The  first  of  these  inquiries  is,  in  the  judgment  of  the  committee, 
answered  so  far  as  is  necessary  in  deciding  upon  the  effect  of  the  act 
of  1852,  by  the  cases  of  Hammond,  of  Earl,  of  Munford,  of  Schenck, 
and  others,  which  we  have  already  cited.  These  cases,  as  we  have 
seen,  all  determine  that,  prior  to  the  time  when  the  Constitution  requires 
the  member  elect  to  commence  the  duties  of  his  legislative  office, 
and  before  he  has  assumed  these  duties  and  taken  the  oath  of  office,  he 
may  receive  compensation  for  discharging  the  duties  of  another  office. 
As  we  have  already  said,  these  cases  do  not  determine  that  he  may  also 
be  compensated  as  a  member  of  Congress  for  the  same  time  for  which 
he  was  compensated  in  the  other  office.  But  they  do  determine  that 
being  a  member  elect  of  Congress  does  not  make  him  an  "  officer  "  in 
such  sense  as  to  bring  him  within  the  prohibition  of  the  act  of  1852. 
This  question,  in  substance,  received  the  careful  attention  of  the 
House  in  the  38th  Congress,  upon  an  able  report  of  one  of  its  commit 
tees.  The  committee  and  House  came  to  what  your  committee  deem  a 
just  conclusion,  when  it  determined  that  one  merely  elected  to  Con 
gress,  but  who  had  not  entered  upon  his  duties  nor  been  qualified,  was 
not  a  member  of  this  House,  that  is,  did  not  hold  an  office  so  as  to  pre  - 
vent  him  from  continuing  to  hold  another  office  and  receive  compensa 
tion  therefor.  The  committee,  in  concluding  their  argument  showing 
that  one  merely  elected  to  Congress  was  not  a  member  of  the  House, 
and  not,  as  such,  amenable  to  its  jurisdiction,  say :  ' '  The  committee 
are  not  aware  of  any  attempt  to  punish  a  representative  elect,  and  of 
but  one  instance  of  an  attempt  to  expel  one.  A  resolution  was  adopted 
by  the  last  House,  under  the  previous  question,  to  expel  a  person  who 
was  a  representative  elect,  but  had  never  signified  his  acceptance  of  the 
office,  nor  qualified,  nor  even  appeared  in  Washington  for  the  purpose 
of  taking  his  seat." 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


265 


In  that  case  the  House  determined,  in  effect,  that  the  act  of  1852 
did  not  prohibit  General  Schenck,  while  a  member  elect  of  Congress, 
from  receiving  the  pay  of  another  office,  to  wit,  that  of  major  general 
of  volunteers. 

This  is  the  last  case  in  which  this  question  came  before  the  House. 
But  the  same  question  received,  in  the  15th  Congress,  in  the  case  of 
Hammond  vs.  Herrick,  (Clark  and  Hail,  Contested  Elections,  293,  294,) 
a  still  more  elaborate  and  exhaustive  consideration.  In  the  report  in 
that  case  (which  also  received  the  sanction  of  the  House)  this  doctrine 
was  explicitly  stated,  and  was  affirmed  after  a  thorough  review  of  the 
English  and  American  cases  touching  it.  The  case  held  the  rule  which 
was  stated  by  the  committee  in  these  words :  "  Neither  do  election  and 
return  constitute  membership.  "  *  *  *  "  Our  rule  in  this  particular 
is  different  from  that  of  the  House  of  Commons.  It  is  also  better,  for 
it  makes  our  theory  conform  to  what  is  fact  in  both  countries — that  the 
act  of  becoming  in  reality  a  member  of  the  House  depends  wholly  upon 
the  person  elected  and  returned.  Election  does  not  of  itself  constitute 
membership,  although  the  period  may  have  arrived  at  which  the  con 
gressional  term  commences." 

This  House  has  again  and  again  determined  that  men  elected  to  it, 
who  do  not  appear  in  the  body  and  assume  the  constitutional  oath  of 
office,  are  not  to  be  reckoned  as  members  of  the  House  in  determining 
the  number  required  to  make  a  majority  or  quorum  of  the  body. 

FRANKING  PRIVILEGE,    ETC. 

The  committee,  in  coming  to  this  conclusion,  have  not  overlooked 
the  fact  that  members  elect,  but  not  qualified,  are  by  the  laws  accorded 
certain  privileges  and  salary.  The  effect  of  this  right  to  enjoy  these 
privileges  before  becoming  qualified  as  a  member  of  the  legislative  body 
has  received  the  fullest  attention  both  in  this  House  and  in  the  English 
Parliament.  The  result  attained  is,  that  these  special  privileges  are 
not  necessarily  indicia  of  actual  official  authority  or  station,  and  may  by 
law  as  well  be  attached  to  one's  person  before  and  after  he  is  an  officer 
and  during  his  official  tenure.  The  representatives  after  the  expiration 
of  their  terms,  the  Presidents  of  the  United  States  after  such  expira 
tion,  and  the  widows  of  certain  ex-Presidents,  all  have  the  franking 
privilege,  and  these  are  not  then  officers  of  the  government  in  any 
sense.  The  assumption  of  office  in  this  country,  as  well  as  its  relin- 
quishment,  is  voluntary,  and  one  elected  to  Congress  is  at  perfect  liber 
ty  to  refuse  to  assume  the  office.  His  exercise  of  the  franking  privi 
lege,  with  the  knowledge  that  he  never  would  enter  upon  the  duties  of 
the  office,  would  be  an  act  of  bad  faith  towards  his  government ;  but 
that  would  not  render  him  a  member  of  Congress,  nor  would  the 


266 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


exercise  prevent  him,  should  failure  of  health  or  other  cause  render  it 
improper  to  enter  upon  his  office,  from  rightly  refusing  ever  to  take  the 
office, 

Other  and  perhaps  more  conclusive  considerations  bearing  upon 
this  important  inquiry  might  be  given ;  but  it  is  not  deemed  best  to 
pursue  it  further.  The  committee  are  entirely  satisfied  that  the  law  of 
this  House  is  fully  and  rightly  settled  as  to  this  point,  and  that  he  is  not 
a  member  of  Congress,  nor  one  who  "  holds  any  office  under  the  govern 
ment  of  the  United  States,"  who  has  only  been  elected  to  this  House, 
but  who  has  never  taken  any  oath  of  office  nor  entered  upon  the  duties 
of  that  position. 

Mr.  Conkling  was  not  prohibited  by  the  act  of  1852  from  receiving 
compensation  as  he  did  for  his  services  in  the  Haddock  trial,  even  if  his 
duties  on  that  trial  were  official.  We  have  not  yet  reached  the  ques 
tion  of  his  right  to  be  also  paid  his  salary  as  a  member  of  this  House  for 
the  same  time  covered  by  the  Haddock  service. 

IS   AX   ACTING   MEMBER   OF  CONGRESS   AN     OFFICER     OF     OR     UNt)ER     THE 

GOVERNMENT  ? 

The  next  proposition  the  committee  were  called  to  consider  and  de 
cide  is  thus  stated  by  Mr.  Conkling : 

"A  representative  in  Congress  is  not  at  all  within  the  words  'person 
iclio holds  an  office  under  the  government  of  the  United  States."*  Senators 
and  representatives  do  not  hold  offices  under  the  government  of  the  United 
States.  They  are  part  of  the  government,  and  therefore  not  affected 
one  way  or  the  other  by  these  provisions." 

If  the  committee  were  sustained  in  the  views  they  have  taken  of 
other  propositions  in  this  inquiry,  then  the  consideration  of  this  one 
would  not  be  necessary  to  the  determination  of  what  is  before  the  com 
mittee.  But  as  the  committee  may  not  be  sustained  in  the  other  prop 
ositions  which  dispose  of  the  case,  they  have  felt  impelled  carefully  to 
consider  this  one. 

The  proposition  that  a  member  of  Congress  who  has  been  sworn 
into  office  is  not  an  officer  under  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
within  the  sense  of  the  act  of  1852,  is  supported  by  an  appeal  to  au 
thorities  expounding  the  sense  of  these  words  as  used  in  the  Constitu 
tion. 

These  or  similar  words  are  found  in  the  Constitution  in  the  follow 
ing  clauses : 

1.  That  prohibiting  senators  and  representatives  during  the  term 
for  which  they  are  elected  from  being  appointed  to  ' '  any  civil  office 
under  the  authority  of  the  United  States"  which  was  created  or  its  emol 
uments  increased  during  such  time. 


*  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  267 

2.  That  prohibiting  a  person    "  holding  any  office  under  the  United 
States  from  being  a  member  of  either  House  of  Congress. ' ' 

3.  That  giving  Congress  the  power  to  make  all  laws  necessary  to 
carry  into  effect  the  powers  vested  by  the  Constitution  in  "any  officer  of 
the  government  of  the  United  States. ' ' 

4.  That  prohibiting   every  "  person    holding  any   office   of  profit  or 
trust  under  the  United  States  from  accepting  any  present,  office,  &c,, 
from  any  king,  prince  or  foreign  state  without  the  consent  of  Con 
gress.  ' ' 

5.  That  prohibiting    every    senator,  representative,    and   person 
"  holding  an  office  of  trust  or  profit  under  the   United  States'1"1  from  being 
appointed  an  elector  for  President,  &c. 

6.  That  providing  that  the  President  shall  commission  "  all  officers 
of  the  United  States." 

1.  That  providing  that  "  all  civil  officers  of  the  United  States  shall  be 
removed  from  office  on  impeachment.'' 

8.  That  prohibiting  any  one  who  has  suffered  a  judgment  of  im 
peachment  from  holding  or  en  joy  ing  "any  office  of  honor,  trust,  or  profit 
under  the  United  States. ' ' 

The  proposition  stated,  and  which  the  committee  are  at-ked  to  af 
firm,  is,  that  a  member  of  Congress  and  his  office  are  not  included  in 
the  scope  or  meaning  of  the  words  of  the  Constitution,  "officer  under  the 
United  States,"  or  "civil  office  under  the  authority  of  the  United 
States."  It  is  said  that  he  is  part  of  the  government  and  is  not 
under  it.  It  seems  to  be  indicated  that  he  may,  in  the  sense  of  the 
Constitution,  be  an  officer  of  the  government,  but  not  under  the  gov 
ernment,  In  the  impeachment  of  Blount  (Wharton's  State  Trials,  268, 
&c.)  this  argument  is  presented  by  Mr.  Bayard,  but  he  (p.  269)  makes 
the  very  proper  remark  as  to  such  an  argument  that  he  was  ' '  unwilling 
to  place  any  confidence  upon  an  argument  derived  from  mere  verbal 
criticism.  In  construing  the  charter  of  a  government,  our  views 
should  comprehend  all  its  parts,  and  our  aim  should  be  to  execute  it  ac 
cording  to  its  general  and  true  design. "  No  method  of  attaining  the 
sense  of  the  Constitution  is  more  unsafe  than  this  one  of  "  sticking"  in 
sharp  verbal  criticism.  But  a  little  consideration  of  this  matter  will 
show  that  "  officers  of  "  and  "  officers  under  "  the  United  States  are  (as 
said  by  Mr.  Dallas,  in  this  Blount  case,  p.  277)  "indiscriminately  used 
in  the  Constitution,"  Take  that  clause  as  to  who  may  be  impeached. 
The  Constitution  says  that  "the  President,  Vice- President,  and  all  civil 
officers  of  the  United  States  shall  be  removed  from  office  on  impeach 
ment  for  and  conviction  of  treason,  bribery,  or  other  high  crimes  and 
misdemeanors. '  *  Now,  then,  if  officers  of  the  United  States  do  not  in 
clude  officers  under  the  United  States,  (that  is,  officers  appointed  by 


268  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

the  President,  such  as  judges,  &c.,)  then  you  cannot  impeach  anybody 
except  the  President,  Vice-President,  and,  perhaps,  the  members  of 
Congress,  if  the  latter  are  to  be  deemed  officers  of  the  government. 
Again:  the  judgment  of  impeachment  disqualifies  the  convict  from 
holding  ' '  any  office  of  trust  or  profit  under  the  United  States, ' '  and  not 
from  holding  the  offices  of  the  United  States.  You  can  only  impeach 
them  who  are  officers  of  the  United  States,  and  then,  when  impeached, 
they  are  only  prohibited  from  holding  offices  under  the  United  States — 
that  is,  they  can  hold  the  same  offices  from  which  they  were  excluded 
by  impeachment,  but  cannot  hold  the  inferior  executive  offices  under 
those  from  which  the  impeachment  does  not  perpetually  exclude 
them. 

Again  :  the  Constitution  provides  that  "  the  President  shall  appoint 
all  officers  of  the  United  States."  Are  not  the  judges,  ministers,  heads 
of  departments,  postmasters,  &c.,  officers  under  the  United  States?  If 
so,  they  are  also  officers  of  the  United  States,  because  the  Constitution 
only  authorizes  him  to  appoint  officers  of  the  United  States. 

It  is  irresistibly  evident  that  no  argument  can  be  based  on  the  dif 
ferent  sense  of  the  words  "of"  and  "  under,"  as  used  in  these  clauses  of 
the  Constitution,  and  we  must  approach  this  question  as  to  whether  a 
member  of  Congress  is  an  officer  "  under  "  the  United  States,  with  the 
knowledge  that  if  we  find  him  to  be  either  an  officer  "  of  "  the  United 
States,  or  one  "  under  "  the  government  of  the  United  States,  in  either 
case  he  has  been  brought  within  the  constitutional  meaning  of  these 
words,  as  used  in  the  act  of  1852,  because  they  are  made  by  the  Con 
stitution  equivalent  and  interchangeable. 

All  we  have  to  do,  therefore,  is  to  find  out  whether  the  Constitution 
anywhere  (not  everywhere)  uses  these  expressions  "  officers  of  "  or  "of 
ficers  under  the  United  States  ' '  in  such  sense  as  must  include  mem 
bers  of  Congress.  If  the  Constitution  once  so  uses  either  of  these  equiv 
alent  expressions,  then  all  argument  as  to  the  sense  of  these  words  in 
the  act  of  1852,  so  far  as  that  argument  is  derived  from  their  meaning  in 
the  Constitution,  is  destroyed,  because  if  the  Constitution  once  uses 
these  words  in  a  sense  which  includes  members  of  Congress,  then  so 
may  the  act  of  1852  so  use  them. 

Now,  let  us  see  whether  there  is  any  clause  where  one  or  other  of 
these  phrases,  "  officers  of  "  or  "  officers  under  the  government  of  the 
United  States,"  must  include  members  of  Congress. 

Take  the  clause  above  cited  as  to  receiving  presents,  &c.,  from  any 
king,  &c  There  the  prohibition  is  that  "  no  person  holding  any  office 
of  profit  or  trust  under  the  United  States  shall,"  &c.  Now,  will  it  do  to 
hold  that  a  clerk  in  the  post-office  shall  not  be  permitted  to  receive  of 
fices,  &c.,  from  a  king,  &c.,  without  the  assent  of  Congress,  and  yet 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


269 


every  member  of  the  Senate  or  of  the  House  be  permitted  to  be 
"plied,"  in  the  interests  of  a  foreign  government,  with  bribes,  in  the 
shape  of  presents,  offices,  emoluments,  and  titles  ?  May  the  King  of 
England  make  the  American  Senate  a  British  House  of  Lords?  He 
may,  unless  the  position  of  a  senator  and  representative  is  an  "  officer 
wider  the  United  States,"  because  there  is  no  other  clause  prohibiting 
such  bestowals !  Again :  take  the  clause  containing  the  requirement 
that  no  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required  as  a  qualification  to  any  of 
fice  or  public  trust  under  the  United  States,  Now,  shall  it  be  held  that 
a  member  of  Congress  may  be  required  to  have  some  religion,  or  a  par 
ticular  religion,  by  the  establishment  of  a  religious  test  as  to  his  office, 
and  yet  all  the  other  offices  of  the  government  be  kept  open  to  the  in 
fidels  ?  And  yet  this  is  the  law  of  the  government,  unless  a  member  of 
Congress  be  one  holding  an  office  or  public  trust  under  the  United 
States ;  for  there  is  no  other  prohibition  than  this  one  upon  requiring 
such  religious  tests. 

Or  take  the  clause,  already  cited,  as  to  the  effect  of  judgments  of 
impeachment.  If  a  member  of  Congress  does  not  hold  any  office  of 
trust  or  profit  under  the  United  States,  then  his  is  an  office  into  which 
one  may  immediately  and  freely  enter  who  has,  by  impeachment,  just 
been  convicted  of  treason,  bribery,  or  other  high  crime.  This  is  be 
cause  the  only  places  into  which  an  impeached  felon  cannot  enter 
are  **  offices  of  honor,  trust,  or  profit  under  the  United  States."  The 
convicted  traitor  may  not  enter  the  office  of  "deputy  United  States 
assessor  of  internal  revenue, "  but  he  may  become  United  States  sena 
tor! 

We  might  increase  these  examples,  but  surely  it  is  not  necessary. 
Surely  it  cannot  be  that  the  Constitution  contains  elements  so  repugnant 
to  all  just  or  safe  principles  of  government. 

But  we  are  referred  to  authorities  to  establish  this  proposition  that 
a  member  of  Congress  is  not  an  officer  "  of  "  or  "  under  "  the  United 
States;  and  the  leading  case  relied  on  is  the  impeachment  of  William 
Blount,  a  United  States  senator  from  Tennessee.  The  case  is  found 
fully  reported  in  Wharton's  State  Trials,  250.  Justice  Story  (1  Const., 
section  793)  says  this  case  decides  that  a  United  States  senator  is  not  a 
civil  officer  of  the  United  States.  This  remark  of  the  learned  author  is 
obviously  an  incautious  one,  and  not  fully  authorized  by  what  occurred 
in  that  case.  The  same  author  in  the  same  section  expressly  declares 
that  the  ' '  reasoning  by  which  the  decision  was  sustained  does  not  ap 
pear,  the  deliberations  having  been  private."  He  adds  that  "  it  was 
probably  held  that  civil  officers  of  the  United  States  "  meant  such  as  de 
rived  their  appointment  from  and  under  the  national  government,  &c. 
The  defences  of  Mr.  Blount  (see  page  260)  were  various.  His  main 


270 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


ones  were :  First,  that  the  offences  charged  were  cognizable  in  the 
civil  courts  and  not  on  impeachment,  they  not  relating  to  his  official 
duties.  Second,  that  he  had  been  expelled  from  the  Senate  before 
the  trial  of  the  impeachment,  and  that  he  was  therefore  not  an  officer  of 
the  United  States  and  not  amenable  to  the  Senate. 

As  to  what  this  case  does  decide,  Wharton  (page  317)  justly  says : 
"  In  a  legal  point  of  view,  all  that  this  case  decides  is,  that  a  senator  of 
the  United  States  'who  has  been  expelled  from  his  seat  is  not,  after  such  ex 
pulsion,  subject  to  impeachment ;  and  perhaps  from  this  the  broader 
proposition  may  be  drawn  that  none  are  liable  to  impeachment  except 
officers  of  the  government  in  the  technical  sense,  excluding  thereby 
members  of  the  national  legislature. ' ' 

Judge  Story  further  says  of  this  decision  that  it  was  one  on  "  which 
the  Senate  was  greatly  divided,"  (14  to  11,)  and  which  "  seems  not  to 
have  been  quite  satisfactory  to  the  minds  of  some  learned  commenta 
tors."  (4  Tuck.  Black.  Com.  App.,  57,  58;  Rawle  on  Const.,  ch.  22, 
pp.  213,  214,  218,  219.) 

Without,  therefore,  designing  to  determine  that  the  case  of  Blount 
did  not  decide  that  a  member  of  Congress  was  not  a  civil  officer  of  the 
United  States  "  in  some  technical  sense,"  the  committee  are  wholly 
unable  to  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  members  of  the  national  Con 
gress  are  not,  in  the  enlarged  and  general  sense  of  the  Constitution, 
officers  of  their  government.  The  committee  do  not  believe  that  any 
authority  is  to  be  found  holding  that  they  are  not.  It  by  no  means 
follows,  because  a  member  of  Congress  may  not  be  tried  by  impeach 
ment,  that  he  is  not  a  "  civil  officer  of  the  United  States  "  in  the  sense 
we  now  consider.  There  are  other  clauses  and  principles  of  the  Con 
stitution  which  affect  the  question  of  the  righj;  to  impeach  a  senator,  be 
sides  that  single  one  as  to  who  are  included  in  the  just  sense  of  the 
words  "civil  officers  of  the  United  States."  Such  is  that  one  provid 
ing  a  method  for  the  expulsion  of  members ;  also  those  as  to  the  sepa 
rate  and  independent  action  of  the  two  Houses  touching  their  own 
members,  &c.  These  and  like  considerations  may  well  be  held  to  con 
trol  and  qualify  the  words  of  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  as  to  who 
may  be  impeached.  No  one  can  read  the  singularly  able  and  exhaus 
tive  argument  in  the  case  of  Biount  and  not  realize  that  the  other 
principles  and  terms  of  the  Constitution  ought  to  and  did  control  the 
sense  of  the  words  "  all  civil  officers  of  the  United  States,"  as  used  in 
this  clause.  The  committee  decline  to  find  that  an  acting  member  of 
Congress  is  not  an  officer  of  this  government  within  the  sense  of  at  least 
some  of  the  clauses  of  the  Constitution.  The  committee  here  leave  this 
important  question  made  in  this  case.  The  effort  of  the  committee,  so 
far  as  this  single  point  is  concerned,  has  been  to  bring  to  the  attention 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  2?1 

of  the  House  the  leading  considerations  which  must  form  the  basis  of 
its  determination  by  the  House,  should  its  determination  be  found 
necessary.  In  the  opinion  of  the  committee,  the  determination  of  thi& 
point  is  not  necessary  to  the  right  determination  of  all  that  is  before 
the  committee,  and  this  is  not,  perhaps,  a  proper  case  in  which  to  make 
a  precedent  upon  so  vital  a  constitutional  question. 

ACT  OF   1852   INCLUDES   ACTING  MEMBERS   IN  THE   WORD    "OFFICE." 

But  suppose  it  be  granted  that  the  constitutional  sense  of  the  words 
"officer  of  the  United  States,"  or  "  office  under  the  United  States,"  be 
what  is  insisted  by  Mr.  Conkling,  does  it  follow  that  they  are  used 
in  so  limited  a  sense  in  the  act  of  1852?  Having  regard  to  the  mischief 
meant  to  be  prevented  by  it,  the  committee  have  been  wholly  unable  to 
find  adequate  reasons  why  a  member  of  Congress  who  has  taken  his 
seat  should  not  be  deemed  an  officer  "of"  or  "under"  the  govern 
ment  in  such  sense  as  that  he  should  not  be  permitted  to  draw  the  sala 
ries  of  two  offices  at  the  same  time,  though  holding  but  one.  To  hold 
that  a  member  of  Congress  is  as  free  as  other  men  from  human  infirm 
ities,  and  as  little  liable  to  fall  into  temptation,  is,  probably,  according 
to  him,  as  high  a  grade  of  virtue  as  would  be  accorded  to  him  either 
by  the  truth  or  by  the  judgment  of  his  fellow-men.  But  if  you  look  to 
the  nature  and  powers  of  his  office,  and  the  absolutely  vital  importance 
of  having  him  removed  as  far  as  possible  from  the  bad  influences  of 
corruption  and  avarice,  such  as  he  would  be  liable  to  encounter,  could 
he  become  entitled  to  the  pay  of  many  offices  at  the  same  time,  the 
propriety  of  holding  that  this  act  of  1852  meant  to  preclude  members  of 
Congress  from  receiving  double  salaries  becomes  quite  irresistible.  We 
therefore  conclude  that  whatever  may  be  the  meaning  of  the  words 
"  office  under  the  United  States,"  as  used  in  the  Constitution,  they,  in 
the  act  of  1852,  ought  to  be  held  to,  and  do,  preclude  an  acting  member 
of  Congress  from  receiving  compensation  for  the  duties  of  any  other 
office. 

WAS  MR.    COSKLING,    AS   ACTING  JUDGE   ADVOCATE,    AN   OFFICER? 

We  are  now  brought  to  the  question  whether  Mr.  Conkling,  in 
what  occurred  in  this  prosecution  of  Haddock,  became  an  officer  of  the 
United  States.  That  he  did  not  we  think  is  most  readily  ascertained. 
An  office  is  a  particular  duty,  charge,  or  trust,  conferred  ~by  pullic  au 
thority^  and  for  a  public  purpose,  with  a  right  usually  attached  to  re 
ceive  a  fixed  compensation  for  such  service.  Nothing  can  be  plainer 
than  that  no  office  of  this  government  can  be  created  or  conferred  ex 
cept  by  some  public  authority  authorized  by  law  to  confer  it.  Upon 
this  very  question  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  in  the  case  of  Maurice,  (2 
Brock.,  101,)  says:  "It  is  too  clear,  I  think,  for  controversy,  that  ap- 


272  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-PRY    CONTROVERSY. 

pointments  to  office  can  be  made  by  heads  of  departments  in  those  cases 
only  which  Congress  has  authorized  by  law ;  and  I  know  of  no  law 
which  authorizes  the  Secretary  of  War  to  make  this  appointment. ' ' 
And  in  that  case  it  was  decided  that  Maurice  did  not  become  an  officer, 
and  that  his  contract  with  the  government,  on  which  the  suit  was 
brought,  was  good  only  by  reason  of  the  fact  that  the  United  States  is 
a  government,  and  as  such  can,  at  common  law,  make  a  valid  contract 
with  its  agents  as  to  matters  of  government. 

The  Constitution  (art.  2,  sec.  2,  clause  2)  provides  that  "  the  Presi 
dent  shall  nominate,  and,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate,  shall  appoint "  *  *  *  "all  officers  of  the  United  States  whose 
appointments  are  not  herein  otherwise  provided  for,  and  which  shall  be 
established  by  law.  But  the  Congress  may  by  law  vest  the  appointment 
of  such  inferior  officers  as  they  think  proper  in  the  President  alone,  in 
the  courts  of  law,  or  in  the  heads  of  departments. ' ?  This  clause  covers 
every  possible  office  under  or  in  the  government.  Aside  from  the  Presi 
dent,  Vice-President,  and  members  of  Congress  (these  being  the  offices 
included  under  the  above  words,  "appointment  herein  provided  for,") 
there  are  but  three  repositories  in  which  can  be  placed  the  power  to  be 
stow  any  office,  to  wit :  the  President,  (the  Senate  assenting,)  the  courts 
of  law,  and  the  heads  of  departments.  There  was,  in  April,  1865,  no 
law  giving  to  any  court  or  any  head  of  any  department  any  power 
whatever  to  confer  upon  any  person  any  office  of  general  or  special 
judge  advocate,  as  an  officer  of  the  government. 

The  6th  section  of  the  act  of  July  17,  1862,  (2  Brightly,  25,)  author 
izing  the  President,  with  the  assent  of  the  Senate,  to  appoint  a  judge 
advocate,  with  rank  and  pay  of  a  major  of  cavalry  for  each  army ;  and 
the  6th  section  of  the  act  of  June  20,  1864,  (2  Brightly,  26  )  authorizing 
the  President,  with  assent  of  Senate,  to  appoint  a  judge  advocate  gen 
eral,  with  rank  of  brigadier  general,  and  an  assistant,  with  rank  of 
colonel  of  cavalry,  are  the  only  laws  then  in  force,  so  far  as  the  com 
mittee  find,  permitting  the  appointment  of  any  judge  advocate  as  such, 
Counsel  in  their  briefs  have  treated  the  49th  section  of  the  articles  of 
war  of  April  10,  1806,  (1  Brightly,  79,)  as  being  also  in  force,  which 
the  committee  assume,  on  their  authority,  it  was.  This  last  permitted 
the  judge  advocate  or  the  general  or  officer  commanding  the  army,  detach 
ment,  or  garrison  to  "  depute  some  person  to  prosecute  in  the  name  of  the 
United  States"  military  offences.  If  there  are  any  other  laws  bearing 
upon  these  appointments,  they  have  escaped  the  attention  of  the  com 
mittee.  The  same  section  last  named  provides  that  "  the  judge  advo 
cate,  or  person  officiating  as  such,"  shall  take  a  certain  oath  to  keep  secret 
the  doings  of  the  court.  (1  Brightly,  86.)  The  25th  section  of  the  act 
of  3d  March,  1863,  (2  Brightly,  26,)  authorizes  the  judge  advocate  to 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


273 


issue  process  for  witnesses.  This  oath  and  these  duties  Mr.  Conkling 
took  and  performed  in  the  Haddock  trial.  He  had  no  other  appoint 
ment  or  commission  than  that  shown  by  the  letters  of  April  3  by  Mr. 
Dana,  set  forth  in  the  letter  of  General  Fry  to  Mr,  Elaine.  He  was 
not  required  to,  nor  did  he  take  the  usual  oath  of  all  officers  of  the 
United  States,  nor  did  he  take  the  oath  required  by  the  act  of  July  2, 
1862.  (2  Brightly,  348.)  Without  taking  that  oath  he  could  not  enter 
upon  or  take  compensation  for  the  duties  of  any  office  whatever,  except 
the  office  of  President,  There  is  no  law  anywhere  authorizing  Mr. 
Stanton  to  appoint  any  one  to  the  office  of  judge  advocate.  In  the  let 
ter  of  Mr,  Dana  above  quoted,  it  was  said  that  ' '  The  Judge  Advocate  Gen 
eral  will  be  instructed  to  issue  to  you  an  appointment  as  special  judge 
advocate  for  the  prosecution  of  any  cases  that  may  be  brought  to  trial 
before  a  military  tribunal."  But  even  this  was  not  done,  Under  this 
state  of  law  and  fact  the  committee  do  not  think  that  Mr.  Conkling 
either  did  or  could  become  an  "  officer"  of  the  United  States.  Under 
these  laws  a  judge  advocate,  or  a  general  or  officer,  might,  under  the 
Constitution,  ''depute  "  Mr.  Conkling  as  agent,  but  could  not  give  him 
an  office,  because  the  Constitution  does  not  permit  these  men  to  be  au 
thorized  to  appoint  to  office. 

"DUTIES   OF  ANY   OTHER   OFFICE." 

The  only  remaining  question  is,  whether  his  being  paid  $3,000  for 
five  months'  service,  from  April  3,  1865,  was  such  a  compensation  for 
"discharging  the  duties  of  any  other  office,"  a&  to  require  Mr.  Conk 
ling,  in  justice  or  legal  propriety,  to  either  pay  back  what  he  has  re 
ceived  for  those  services,  or  else  not  to  draw  his  salary  as  a  member  of 
Congress  for  that  time. 

The  committee  submit  to  the  House  the  following  propositions  as 
conclusions  at  which  they  have  arrived  as  to  this  point : 

1.  When  a  member  elect  of  Congress  has  drawn  the  salary  or  pay 
for  any  other  office,  for  any  time  after  the  4th  of  March  preceding  his 
entering  upon  his  duties  as  a  member  of  Congress,  he  should  not  re 
ceive  any  compensation  as  a  member  of  Congress  for  that  same  time. 

2.  The  act   of  31st     August,  1852,     (1  Brightly,     821,)     which 
is     relied     on    as    prohibiting    Mr.   Conkling    from    receiving     the 
$3,000,  does  not  apply  to  "duties"  or  services  for  which  there  was  no 
officer  provided  by  law  whose  duty  it  was  to  discharge  them,  and  which 
duties  were,  in  their  nature  and  in  law,  such  that  "  some  other  person" 
than  an  officer  might  legally  discharge  them. 

3.  The  duties  discharged  by   Mr.  Conkling  were  duties  for  the 
doing  of  which  the  law  had  not  provided,  nor  paid  any  other  officer, 
and  charged  such  officer,  as  part  of  his  official  duty  at   that  time  and 


274  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

place,  to  enter  upon  and  do.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  services 
which,  in  their  nature  and  under  existing  law,  (1  Brightly,  79  and  80,) 
some  other  person  than  a  judge  advocate  could  do.  The  law  expressly 
permitted  some  person  not  a  judge  advocate,  and  "  detailed  by  him  " 
and  "  officiating  as  such,"  to  discharge  them. 

4.  The  law,  or  military  regulations  in  pursuance  of  law,  may  con 
fer  upon  private  individuals,  not  officers,  powers  similar  to  those  usually 
exercised  by  officers,  such  as  that  of  issuing  subpoenas,  swearing  wit 
nesses,  &c.     Such  is  common  in  regulations  touching  elections,  special 
commissions,  the  duties  in  some  of  the   States  of  attorneys,  of  grand 
jurors,  and  the  like.     These  conferments  of  such  temporary  or  limited 
powers  do  not,  in  the  sense  of  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United 
States,  necessarily  constitute  the  recipients  of  them  "  officers, "  nor  make 
their  duties  those  of   "any  office." 

5.  Mr.  Conkling's  services  in  the  Haddock  trial  were  not  "  the 
duties  of  any  other  office,"  within  the  meaning  of  the  act  of  1852,  and 
he  was  entitled  to  compensation  therefor,   the  same   as  for  any  private 
service  rendered  by  him  in  his  profession.      His  having,  therefore,  re 
ceived  this  money  as  the  ordinary  earnings  of  his  profession,   its  receipt 
no  more  requires  him  to  decline  to  draw  his  salary  for  that  time  than 
the  collection  of  any  of  his  other  earnings  during  that  time  requires  it. 

THE   ANIMUS  OF   THE   ELAINE   LETTER. 

In  the  month  of  February,  A.D.  1865,  General  Fry  entered  into  an 
arrangement  with  Colonel  L.  C.  Baker,  chief  of  the  United  States  de 
tective  force,  and  the  firm  of  Allen,  Riley  &  Hughes,  then  notorious 
bounty  brokers  in  the  city  of  New  York,  having  for  its  object  the  arrest 
of  bounty- jumpers  and  deserters  who  then,  as  was  supposed,  infested 
the  vicinity  of  that  city.  The  arrangement  was  first  made  between 
Colonel  Baker  and  Allen,  Riley  &  Hughes,  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
but  subsequently  the  plan  was  communicated  to  General  Fry,  and  by 
him  approved. 

The  plan  was  as  follows : 

Lieutenant  Colonel  Ilges,  of  the  14th  United  States  infantry,  was  to 
be  detailed,  with  orders  to  open  an  enrolling  and  enlisting  office  at 
Hoboken,  New  Jersey.  Facilities  were  to  be  given  all  the  known 
bounty- jumpers  and  deserters  in  the  vicinity  to  enlist  and  desert  with 
impunity  until  the  facility  for  such  desertion  should  become  known  to 
all  other  bounty- jumpers  in  the  neighborhood,  which  was  supposed  to 
be  a  sufficient  inducement  to  secure,  upon  a  day  fixed,  the  enrolment 
and  enlistment  of  a  large  number,  who  were  to  be  arrested  by  a  detach 
ment  of  United  States  soldiers  to  be  detailed  for  that  purpose. 

By  a  general  order  of  the  War  Department  at  that  time  the  head 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-PRY    CONTROVERSY. 


275 


of  each  board  of  enrolment  was  required  to  detain  and  hold  in  his  hands 
the  local  bounty  allowed  to  each  recruit,  which,  at  this  point,  was  three 
hundred  dollars.  The  object  of  this  was  to  secure  the  arrival  of  the 
recruit  at  the  point  of  rendezvous,  at  which  time  the  money  was  to  be 
paid  to  the  recruit.  Messrs.  Allen,  Riley  &  Hughes  were  to  provide  all 
the  cash  necessary  for  this  purpose.  In  consideration  of  such  advance 
ments,  and  the  effect  the  enterprise  might  have  upon  .the  subsequent 
business  of  Allen,  Riley  &  Hughes,  all  bounty- jumpers  and  deserters 
enlisted  were  credited  regularly  upon  the  books  of  the  office,  certificates 
of  regular  enlistments  were  made  and  signed  by  the  proper  officer  of  the 
board,  and  the  same  delivered  to  said  Allen,  Riley  &  Hughes,  who  were 
allowed  to  sell  them  to  persons  desiring  substitutes,  or  to  the  authorities 
of  towns,  cities,  or  counties  in  the  vicinity ;  and  when  such  certificates 
were  thus  sold,  such  person  or  corporation  were  accredited  therewith  as 
though  such  enlistment  had  been  made  in  good  faith. 

On  the  first  day  of  March,  1865,  in  pursuance  of  the  foregoing 
arrangements,  Colonel  Ilges  opened  an  office  at  Hoboken,  and  com 
menced  taking  recruits.  On  the  fourth  of  the  same  month  he  received, 
through  Captain  H.  J.  Mills,  the  following  instructions : 

"  WASHINGTON,  D.  C.,  March  4,  1865. 

"  Until  otherwise  ordered,  you  are  directed  to  allow  credits  for 
such  men  as  Lieutenant  Colonel  Ilges,  captain  14th  United  States  in 
fantry,  certifies  to  you  as  enlisted  by  him.  He  is  recruiting  at  Hoboken. 
Inform  Colonel  Ilges  of  this  order.  This  command  is  special  and  confi 
dential. 

"JAMES  B.  FRY, 

<*  Provost  Marshal    General. 
"Captain  H.  J.  MILLS, 

"  Provost  Marshal  Fiftli  District  New  Jersey." 

Between  the  first  and  ninth  days  of  March  Colonel  Ilges  received  and 
mustered  in  fifty-four  recruits.  Of  these,  only  three  were  enlisted  with 
the  understanding  that  they  were  ever  to  enter  the  service,  The  re 
maining  fifty-one  were  enlisted  with  the  knowledge  that  they  were 
notorious  "  bounty-jumpers,"  and  as  soon  as  enlisted  suffered  to  escape 
by  passing  out  of  a  back  room  in  the  office.  Certificates,  regular  in 
form,  were,  from  time  to  time,  issued  by  Colonel  Ilges,  on  account  of 
such  enlistments  and  muster,  and  delivered  to  Allen,  Riley  and  Hughes, 
and  by  them  sold  to  the  authorities  of  Jersey  City,  which  city  received 
credit  for  the  same. 

On  the  10th  of  March  arrangements  were  made,  in  pursuance  of  the 
original  plan,  to  arrest  as  bounty -jumpers  all  who  might  apply  for  en 
listment  or  who  might  enlist  at  that  office  on  that  day.  It  was  ex 
pected  that  a  large  number — at  least  one  thousand — might  be  thus 


276  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

secured.  But  the  plot  was  discovered  by  the  bounty- jumpers  in  time 
to  prevent  its  consummation  to  the  extent  anticipated,  and  only  one 
hundred  and  eighty- three  persons  were  thus  arrested  and  secured. 
Upon  these  enlistments  being  made,  Colonel  Ilges,  in  pursuance  of  said 
orders  from  General  Fry,  issued  certificates  of  their  regular  enlistments, 
delivered  the  same  to  Allen,  Riley  and  Hughes,  which  they  sold  to  the 
authorities  of  Jersey  City,  to  be  credited  upon  its  quota.  For  these 
certificates  of  credit  or  enlistment  the  authorities  of  Jersey  City  paid 
Allen,  Riley  and  Hughes  $126,000.  Of  this  sum,  however,  Colonel  Ilges 
required,  in  conformity  to  the  aforesaid  "general  order,  "the  sum  of 
•$300  of  the  bounty  money  of  each  recruit  to  be  deposited  with  him. 
In  the  cases  of  three  out  of  183  so-called  bounty- jumpers  this  was  neg 
lected.  As  respects  all  the  others  it  was  complied  with,  so  as  to  leave 
from  this  source  in  the  hands  of  Colonel  Ilges  the  sum  of  $54,000.  This 
money  was  at  once  deposited  by  Colonel  Ilges  in  the  Broadway  National 
Bank,  to  await,  as  he  says,  the  further  order  of  the  Provost  Marshal 
General. 

The  money  was  immediately  claimed  by  Messrs.  Allen,  Riley  and 
Hughes,  under  an  alleged  contract  with  General  Fry.  Colonel  Ilges, 
however,  did  not  assent  to  their  claim.  But  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the 
men  enlisted  were  then  known  to  have  been  incarcerated  at  Fort  La 
fayette,  and  that  no  steps  were  likely  to  be  taken  to  prove  them  deserters, 
Colonel  Ilges  claimed  that  if  the  men  were  held  for  service  without 
being  convicted  of  any  desertion  it  should  then  go  to  them  ;  but  if  the 
men  were  proved  to  be  deserters  the  United  States  treasury  should 
receive  the  money,  or,  in  case  the  credits  should  be  disallowed,  that  the 
money  ought  to  be  refunded  to  the  local  authorities,  who  had  paid  it  in 
good  faith,  and  who  would  otherwise  be  defrauded  by  the  act  of  the 
government  itself. 

Colonel  Ilges  states  that  on  his  application  to  Messrs.  Allen,  Riley  and 
Hughes  to  pay  the  balance  of  the  $900  which  they  had  failed  to  deposit, 
they  told  him  it  was  unnecessary  to  do  eo,  as  the  whole  amount  in  his 
hands  ($54,000)  would  be  paid  back  to  them  within  a  few  days  by 
order  of  the  Provost  Marshal  General. 

On  the  18th  of  March,  1865,  while  the  payment  of  the  fifty-four 
thousand  dollars  was  suspended,  and  the  question  as  to  who  was  en 
titled  to  receive  it  was  pending,  Theodore  Allen,  of  the  firm  of  Allen, 
Riley  and  Hughes,  had  an  interview  with  General  Fry,  at  the  office  of  the 
latter,  in  the  city  of  Washington. 

The  account  which  Allen  gives  of  the  conversation  which  trans 
pired  at  that  interview,  which  your  committee  prefer  to  incorporate  in 
the  words  of  the  witness,  is  as  follows : 

"  I  sent  in  my  card  into  the  War  Department.     I  first  saw  the 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  277 

messenger,  who  told  me  that  General  Fry  could  not  be  seen,  as  it  was 
past  the  hour  for  receiving  anybody.  I  told  him  it  was  very  impor 
tant  that  I  should  see  General  Fry,  and  if  General  Fry  knew  I  was  there 
he  would  see  me.  He  took  my  card.  I  then  saw  General  Fry  and  told 
him  I  had  come  in  response  to  a  letter  or  telegram  from  him  to  Colonel 
Baker,  requesting  me  to  come  to  Washington  and  call  upon  him. 

"Question.  What  did  General  Fry  answer  to  that?  Answer.  He 
said  '  yes  ' ;  that  he  had  telegraphed  to  Colonel  Baker  that  he  wished  to 
see  me ;  that  he  understood  we  had  not  been  quite  as  successful  in  the 
Hoboken  raid  as  we  had  expected,  He  then  asked  what  had  become  of 
the  money  that  had  been  received.  I  told  him  that  I  had  it  all,  or  the 
firm  had  it,  with  the  exception  of  $54,000  that  Colonel  Ilges  had  re 
tained,  He  asked  me  if  Colonel  Baker  had  ever  asked  me  for  any  part 
of  that  money.  I  told  him  no,  he  had  not,  and  that  Colonel  Ilges  held 
$54,000  of  that  money,  and  that  I  considered  I  was  entitled  to  it  through 
the  agreement  between  General  Fry,  myself,  and  Colonel  Baker,  and 
that  Colonel  Ilges  held  it  and  would  not  pay  it  over  till  he  was  ordered 
to  do  so  by  General  Fry,  on  the  ground  that  the  general  order  would 
not  allow  him  to  do  so,  unless  General  Fry  ordered  him  to  do  so.  He 
then  said,  '  That  is  all  well ;  we  shall  see  about  it. '  Said  he,  the  matter 
I  wanted  to  see  you  most  about  was  with  reference  to  recruiting  affairs 
at  Utica.  I  told  him  I  was  acquainted  with  a  party  named  Burke  and 
another  named  Richardson,  who  were  doing  recruiting  business  at 
Utica,  and  thought  I  could  get  all  the  information  possible.  He  said  he 
thought  so  too,  and  that  he  thought  I  was  just  the  person  to  get  all  the 
information,  and  for  that  reason  he  had  sent  for  me,  because  he  would 
not  trust  any  of  Colonel  Baker's  officers,  He  said  there  appeared  to  be 
in  Utica  enormous  frauds  in  the  provost  marshal's  department  as  it  was 
conducted  by  Captain  Crandall,  and  that  he  wanted  to  get  at  these 
frauds ;  that  he  had  tried  and  had  not  been  successful,  and  that  he 
wished  me  to  go  to  Utica.  I  told  him  I  thought  from  what  I  had  known 
of  recruiting  in  Utica,  and  from  what  I  had  heard,  that  if  he  had  found 
out  any  frauds  in  Utica  I  did  not  think  they  would  implicate  Captain 
Crandall,  but  would  point  more  directly  to  Major  Haddock.  He  said 
he  did  not  want  any  evidence  against  Major  Haddock,  but  against 
Captain  Crandall,  and  he  also  wanted  evidence  that  would  implicate 
Mr.  Conkling  in  the  frauds,  because  he  had  set  himself  in  opposition 
to  him  (General  Fry)  as  the  champion  for  Captain  Crandall,  and  that  he 
wished  me  to  proceed  immediately  to  Utica  and  get  that  evidence.  He 
said  he  wished  me  to  go  to  Utica  and  get  evidence  that  would  implicate 
Mr.  Conkling  in  the  frauds  with  Captain  Crandall,  at  all  hazards ;  and 
while  I  was  gone  that  he  would  order  this  money  that  Colonel  Ilges  held 
to  be  paid  over  to  me.  I  told  him  it  was  better  that  it  be  paid  to  Riley, 


278 


CONKLING    AND    ELAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


as  he  was  the  treasurer.     He  said  the  order  should  be  made,     That 
closed  the  conversation.     I  then  left  and  went  back  to  New  York." 

On  the  18th  of  March  the  following  telegram  was  sent  by  General 
Fry  to  Colonel  Baker : 

"  WAR  DEPARTMENT,  PROVOST  MARSHAL  GENERAL'S  BUREAU, 

"Washington,  D.  C.,  March  18,  1865. 

"  Allen  is  here,  and  tells  me  he  can  provide  information  about  the 
Utica  district.  I  have  told  him  to  do  so.  He  starts  back  to  New  York 
to-night,  and  will  see  you.  Produce  all  the  facts  in  that  case. 

"JAMES  B.  FRY, 
"Provost  Marshal  General. 
"  Colonel  L.  C.  BAKER, 

"No.  12  Vesey  street.  New  York.'' 

Colonel  Ilges  states  that,  having  deposited  the  $54,000  in  the  bank 
on  the  15th  of  March,  he  proceeded,  on  the  17th  of  March,  to  Washing 
ton  city,  and,  in  person,  related  to  Provost  Marshal  General  Fry  all  the 
details  connected  with  the  office  at  Hoboken,  the  capture  of  the  183  so- 
called  bounty- jumpers,  and  the  amount  of  money  in  his  hands,  asking, 
at  the  same  time,  for  instructions  in  regard  to  the  disposal  of  the  money. 
To  which  General  Fry  replied  that  further  orders  would  be  sent  by 
mail ;  that  he  (Colonel  Ilges)  then  expressed  to  General  Fry  his  fear 
that,  at  some  future  day  he  might  be  called  upon  for  explanations  why 
he  had,  at  his  office  at  Hoboken,  acted  contrary  to  existing  orders  and 
regulations  governing  the  mustering  service,  and  that  he  intended  to 
ask  for  a  court  of  inquiry,  when  Provost  Marshal  General  Fry  assured 
him  that  he  had  done  his  duty  well,  and  only  obeyed  orders. 

On  the  19th  of  March  he  received  the  following  despatch : 

"WAR  DEPARTMENT,  PROVOST  MARSHAL  GENERAL'S  OFFICE, 

"  Washington,  D.  (7.,  March  19,  1865. 

"  COLONEL:  I  am  directed  by  the  Provost  Marshal  General  to  in 
form  you  that  the  credits  of  the  men  mustered  by  you  March  11,  1865, 
at  Hoboken,  New  Jersey,  and  credited  to  Jersey  City  at  large,  are  disal 
lowed,  and  that  you  will  refund  the  money  to  the  parties  who  ad 
vanced  it. 

"  I  am,  colonel,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

"  W.  OWENS, 

"  Captain  6th  United  States  Cavalry,  A.  A.  A.  G. 
"Brevet  Lieut.  Col.  GUIDO  ILGES,  U.  S.  A., 
"Mustering  Officer,  Hobolcen,  New  Jersey." 

On  the  21st  of  March  the  following  communication  was  sent  by 
Colonel  Ilges  to  the  Provost  Marshal  General : 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


279 


"  RECRUITING  SERVICE  UTH  INFANTRY, 
"163  Hester  street,  New  York  city,  March  21,  1865. 

"  CAPTAIN  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your 
communication  of  March  19,  1865,  informing  me  that  the  credits  of 
men  mustered  by  me  March  11,  1865,  at  Hpboken,  New  Jersey,  and 
credited  to  Jersey  City  at  large,  are  disallowed,  and  instructing  me  to 
refund  this  money  to  the  parties  who  advanced  it. 

"I  beg  leave  to  state  that  no  men  were  mustered  by  me  on  the 
aforesaid  date,  but  I  infer  that  this  communication  meant  to  say  the 
10th  instead  of  the  llth  of  March,  1863. 

"  I  would  respectfully  state  that  on  the  eaid  day  four  regulars  were 
mustered  by  me,  and  that  if  their  credits  are  not  to  be  effected  [affected] 
they  should  be  excluded  in  the  order.  I  mustered  on  the  10th  day  of  March 
one  hundred  and  eighty-three  volunteers  for  three  years,  so-called 
bounty-jumpers,  and  they  were  credited  to  Jersey  City  at  large,  with 
the  exception  of  fifteen  recruits  that  were  credited  to  Clinton  township, 
Essex  county,  fourth  congressional  district,  New  Jersey. 

"I  would  further  state  that  I  have  at  my  disposal  $300  local 
bounty  for  each  of  these  one  hundred  and  eighty-three  recruits,  and 
that  I  received  this  amount  from  Allen,  Riley  &  Co.,  who  had  contracted 
with  the  counties  for  these  credits;  and  I  would,  therefore,  respectfully 
request  that  you  inform  me  whether  or  not  I  am  to  refund  this  money  to 
these  parties,  or  to  the  proper  representatives  of  the  classes  icho  received  the 
credits. 

"These  one  hundred  and  eighty- three  recruits  were  properly 
mustered  into  the  service  by  me,  and  I  credited  them  according  to  in 
structions  and  orders  regulating  the  mustering  service.  None  of  these 
recruits  have  as  yet  been  proven  to  have  been  credited  before ;  and 
when  I  gave  these  credits  I  did  so  as  a  United  States  officer,  believing 
that  I  was  doing  my  duty,  and  advancing  the  interests  of  the  plan  of 
Colonel  Baker,  sanctioned  by  the  Provost  Marshal  General.  I  am  in 
formed  that  the  county  representatives  who  received  these  credits  paid 
a  large  amount  of  premiums  to  Messrs.  Allen,  Riley  &  Co.,  besides  the 
$300  local  bounty ;  and  as  they  have  done  so  after  having  been  informed 
by  me  of  the  correctness  of  these  credits,  I  would  respectfully  call  your 
attention  to  the  fact  that  when  these  credits  are  disallowed  the  said  local 
ities  will  lose  a  large  amount  of  money  paid  out  by  them  in  good  faith, 
I  am  not  aware  what  amount  of  money  was  paid  to  Messrs.  Allen, 
Riley  &  Co.  for  each  recruit,  and  cannot  even  give  a  probable  guess,  as 
I  only  collected  the  usual  amount  from  them — $300  for  each  recruit, 
this  being  the  amount  of  bounty  paid  to  a  recruit  enlisted  at  Hoboken, 
New  Jersey. 

"  I  would  here  add  that  Messrs.  Allen,  Riley  &  Co.  are  the  parties 


280 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


who  carried  out  the  plan  above  referred  to,  and  I  only  allowed  them  to 
be  present  in  my  office,  and  to  contract  for  these  credits  contrary  to  ex 
isting  orders,  after  I  had  been  assured  by  Colonel  L.  C.  Baker,  special 
agent  of  the  War  Department,  that  the  whole  proceeding  was  sanc 
tioned  by  the  Provost  Marshal  General  United  States  Army. 

"  I  therefore  respectfully  request  that  you  inform  me,  at  your 
earliest  convenience,  what  disposition  I  am  to  make  of  the  money  re 
ferred  to. 

"I  remain,  captain,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

"GUIBOILGES 

i(  Capt.  14.th  Infantry,  Brevet  Lieut.  Col.  Vols.,  Recruiting  Officer. 
"  Captain  W.  OWENS, 

"  5th  U.  S.  Ca-mlry,  A.  A.  A.  G.,   Washington,  D.  C." 

In  reply  to  this  letter  of  the  21st,  Colonel  Ilges  received  on  the 
24th  of  the  same  month  the  following  reply  : 

"  WAR  DEPARTMENT,  PROVOST  MARSHAL  GENERAL'S  BUREAU, 
"  Washington,  D.  C.,  March  23, 1865. 

"  COLONEL  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your 
communication  of  the  21st  instant,  and,  in  reply,  would  state  that  the 
communication  of  the  19th  instant,  referred  to,  was  intended  to  cover 
the  cases  of  the  183  so-called  bounty- jumpers,  and  that  the  amount 
which  you  received  for  the  purpose  of  paying  bounties  to  these  183  so- 
called  bounty- jumpers  the  Provost  Marshal  directs  to  be  refunded  to 
the  parties  who  advanced  it.  * 

"  I  am,  colonel,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

"W.  OWENS, 

«•  Captain  5th  U.  S.  Cavalry,  A.  A.  A.  G. 
"  Brevet  Lieut.  Colonel  GUIDO  ILGES, 

"  United  States  Army,  Hester  street,  N.  7." 

The  suspicions  of  Allen,  as  he  alleges,  had  been  somewhat  excited 
by  the  course  of  General  Fry  in  the  transaction  between  them,  and  he 
resolved,  if  possible,  as  he  says,  to  circumvent  him,  and  accordingly  he 
communicated  the  result  of  his  interview  with  General  Fry  to  various 
parties  at  New  York,  and  resolved  not  to  go  to  Utica,  but  to  wait  at 
New  York  a  sufficient  time  to  induce  in  General  Fry's  mind  a  belief  that 
he  had  in  fact  complied  with  his  agreement,  and  then  sent  to  him  the 
following  despatch : 
"  No.  51.  AMERICAN  TELEGRAPH  COMPANY, 

"  March  24,  1865. 
"  Brigadier  General  FRY, 

"  Provost  Marshal  General,   Washington,  D.  C.: 
"  I  have  just  returned  from  Utica,  and  Colonel  Ilges  refuses  to  de- 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  281 

liver  the  money  received  from  me  because  your  order  is  dated  the  llth 
instead  of  10th  of  March.     Please  answer  through  Colonel  Baker. 

"THEO.  ALLEN, 
"Please  write  your  address  under  your  signature." 

On  the  same  day  the  follow  ing  telegram  was  sent  by  General  Fry 
to  Colonel  Baker : 

[Original  by  telegraph.] 
"  WAR  DEPARTMENT,  PROVOST  MARSHAL  GENERAL'S  BUREAU, 

"Washington,  D.  C.,  March  24,  1865. 
"  Colonel  L.  C,  BAKER,  No.  12   Vesey  street,  New  York  city: 

"  I  have  been  informed  by  Theo.  Allen,  of  New  York,  that  Colonel 
Ilges  declines  to  turn  over  the  money  received  from  the  bounty-jump 
ers  on  the  llth  instant.  I  wish  you  to  see  Colonel  Ilges  and  have  him 
turn  over  this  money  as  directed. 

"JAMES  B.  FRY, 
"Provost  Marshal  General.11 

On  the  24th  of  March  Messrs.  Allen,  Riley  and  Hughes,  in  company 
with  a  Mr.  Stanley,  called  upon  Colonel  Ilges,  demanded  of  him  the 
$54,000,  and  upon  his  refusing  to  give  up  the  money  to  them  until  he 
could  see  Colonel  L.  C.  Baker  and  ask  his  advice  in  the  matter,  they 
threatened  immediate  legal  proceedings  to  compel  the  delivery  of  the 
money.  Colonel  Ilges  then  called  upon  Colonel  Baker  at  his  office,  but 
being  unable  to  see  him  at  that  time,  he  proceeded  to  the  office  of  the 
United  States  district  attorney,  D.  L.  Smith,  esq.,  No.  12  Chambers 
street,  and  laid  the  case  before  one  of  the  attorneys  in  his  office,  who 
advised  him  not  to  give  up  the  money  until  he  had  further  orders  from 
Washington.  He  also  consulted  with  several  officers  of  the  regular 
army  then  in  the  city,  and  was  by  them  advised  to  the  same  effect. 

On  the  25th  of  March,  1861,  Colonel  Ilges  was  again  sent  for  by 
Colonel  L.  C.  Baker,  and  upon  his  arrival  at  Colonel  Baker's  office  a 
telegraphic  despatch  was  shown  him  by  Colonel  Baker  from  the  Provost 
Marshal  General,  directing  him  to  order  Colonel  Ilges  to  turn  over  the 
amount  of  money  ($54,000)  held  by  him  as  bounty  for  the  183  so-called 
bounty- jumpers  to  Messrs.  Allen,  Riley,  &  Co.  After  some  hesitation 
Colonel  Ilges  then  proceeded  to  the  National  Broadway  Bank,  accom 
panied  by  Messrs.  Allen,  Riley,  Hughes  and  Stanley,  and  there  drew 
the  following  check : 
"  No.  24.  NEW  YORK,  March  25,  1865. 

"  National  Broadway  Bank,  pay  to  Messrs.  Peter  Riley  &  Co.,  or  hear 
er,  fifty -four  thousand  dollars. 

'  "$54,000.  "GUIDO  ILGES, 

"Capt.  lUh  IT.  S.  Inf.,  Bet.  Lt.  Col.   U.  8.  A.,  Recruiting  Officer. " 


282 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


This  check  was  then  handed  to  Peter  Riley  in  the  presence  of  the 
others,  and  he  presented  it  to  the  paying  teller  of  the  said  bank,  and  re 
ceived  the  $54,000  in  payment  of  the  same. 

On  the  25th  of  March  General  Fry  sent  the  following  despatch  to 
Colonel  Baker : 

"  PROVOST  MARSHAL  GENERAL'S  BUREAU, 

"Washington,  D.  C.,  March  25,  1865, 
"  Colonel  L.  C.  BAKER,  New  Tori: 

' '  You  must  prepare  all  the  facts  in  the  case  of  the  Utica  district, 
without  reference  to  Major  Luddington's  report.  It  is  absolutely  nec 
essary  for  me  to  have  them,  whether  Major  Luddington  has  been  able  to 
obtain  them  'or  not.  See  Allen  and  let  him  make  it  his  business  to 
straighten  this  matter  out. 

"JAMES  B.  FRY, 
"  Provost  Marshal  General." 

It  was  charged  against  General  Fry,  by  Mr.  Conkling,  that  the  mo 
tives  of  the  former  in  his  action  in  regard  to  the  Utica  district  were  to 
be  found  in  his  relations  with  Major  John  A.  Haddock,  who  was  en 
gaged  in  fraudulent  practices  at  Elmira,  from  which  it  suited  the  policy 
of  General  Fry  to  divert  public  attention  by  the  prosecution  of  the  al 
leged  frauds  at  Utica.  It  appeared  from  the  evidence  before  your  com 
mittee  that,  some  time  prior  to  the  transactions  at  Hoboken  referred  to, 
Major  John  A.  Haddock,  acting  assistant  provost  marshal  for  the  west 
ern  district  of  New  York,  had  been  suspected  of  the  most  flagrant  and 
corrupt  violations  of  official  duty.  Detailed  reports  of  specific  acts  of 
official  dishonesty  committed  by  him  had  been  made  to  General  Fry  in 
writing  on  several  occasions.  One  by  Edward  Meloy,  dated  February 
3,  1865,  and  another  by  Peter  A.  La  France,  dated  February  28,  1865. 
Two  of  the  alleged  accomplices  of  Haddock  in  the  fraudulent  practices 
reported,  named  Webell  and  Dalton,  were  arrested  and  afterwards  sent 
to  the  penitentiary.  Haddock  himself,  however,  was  not  then  arrested 
nor  relieved  from  duty.  But  on  the  15th  day  of  March,  1865,  Colonel 
L.  C.  Baker  telegraphed  to  Provost  Marshal  General  Fry  to  the  effect 
that  he  had  discovered  most  astounding  enlistment  frauds  at  Elmira, 
with  which  Major  Haddock  was  connected.  Soon  afterwards  Major 
Haddock  was  arrested  by  order  of  the  Secretary  of  War,  a  court-mar- 
tial  was  convened  in  his  case,  and  Hon.  Roscoe  Conkling  authorized  by 
the  War  Department  to  represent  the  government  at  his  trial. 

If  there  be  any  circumstances  in  the  testimony  which  are  suscep 
tible  of  further  explanation,  either  by  General  Fry  or  Colonel  Baker, 
(to  both  of  whom  many  of  the  statements  relate,)  your  committee  have 
not  had  the  benefit  of  their  knowledge,  as  neither  appeared  as  a  witness 
in  the  case.  As  your  committee  have  already  explained,  their  investi- 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


283 


gation  of  the  matters  with  which  they  have  been  charged  by  the  order 
of  the  House  has  thus  far  been  confined  to  that  branch  of  the  case  re 
lating  to  the  charges  made  by  General  Fry  against  the  honorable 
Roscoe  Conkling,  leaving  the  other  branch  of  the  case  relating  to  the 
charges  made  by  the  honorable  Roscoe  Conkling  against  the  Provost 
Marshal  General  untouched.  Whatever  evidence  there  may  be  con 
tained  in  the  report  of  jour  committee  which  may  raise  a  question 
touching  the  management  of  the  Provost  Marshal  General's  bureau  has 
been  admitted  solely  on  account  of  its  supposed  relation  to  the  motives 
of  General  Fry  in  the  publication  of  his  charges  against  Mr.  Conkling, 
as  has  already  been  explained.  So  far,  therefore,  as  the  committee 
have  deemed  it  pertinent  for  that  purpose  they  have  heard  and  cor»- 
sidered  it,  and  for  no  other.  It  would  be  premature  and  might  work 
injustice  if  your  committee  at  this  stage  of  their  investigation  were  to 
pronounce  affirmatively  in  advance  upon  a  branch  of  the  case  only 
collaterally  introduced,  and  still  further  to  be  heard  and  considered. 
Your  committee  therefore  refrain  altogether  from  expressing  their  judg 
ment  upon  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  General  Fry  on  the  charge  of  the 
alleged  corrupt  bargain  with  Allen  and  his  connexion  with  the  Hobo- 
ken  enlistments. 

They  refrain  also  from  any  expression  of  their  opinion  as  to  the 
credit  to  be  attached  to  the  testimony  of  Theodore  Allen,  (a  witness 
sought  to  be  impeached  by  the  party  against  whom  he  was  called, )  nor 
does  your  committee  undertake  to  say  at  this  time  how  far  the  testi 
mony  of  the  said  Allen  is  corroborated  and  sustained  by  the  other  testi 
mony  in  the  case.  So  far,  however,  as  any  of  the  evidence  before  your 
committee  bears  upon  the  point  for  the  illustration  of  which  it  was  ad 
mitted  they  have  not  failed  fully  to  consider  it.  Whatever  relative 
weight  has  been  attached  by  your  committee  to  the  various  testimony 
in  the  cause  which  brought  them  to  their  conclusion  in  reference  to  the 
motives  of  General  Fry  in  writing  the  Elaine  letter,  it  cannot  be  im 
portant  at  this  time  to  announce,  since  their  conclusion  on  that  point  is 
not  equivocal,  and  is  the  unanimous  judgment  of  the  committee. 

The  following  copies  of  what  purport  to  be  two  letters— one  by 
Colonel  L.  C.  Baker,  and  the  other  by  General  Fry — appear  in  a 
printed  argument  by  Hon.  A.  G.  Riddle,  which  has  been  laid  upon  the 
tables  of  the  members  of  this  House : 

'  *  OFFICE  SPECIAL  AGENCY  WAR  DEPARTMENT, 

"New  York,  March  16,  1865. 

"SiR:  Since  the  capture  of  the  bounty- jumpers  at  Hoboken,  re 
peated  applications  have  been  made  to  me  to  have  said  jumpers  credited 
to  the  State  of  New  Jersey.  Colonel  Ilges,  the  mustering  officer,  ap- 


284  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

plied  to  me,  before  going  to  Washington  last  week,  to  make  applica 
tion  to  you  to  have  said  jumpers  so  credited.  I  informed  him  that  I 
did  not  think  these  men  could  or  would  be  credited,  advising  him 
(Colonel  Ilges)  to  apply  to  you  for  the  i  equired  instructions  or  per 
mission. 

"On  Tuesday  last,  while  in  Washington,  and  after  my  conversa 
tion  with  you  on  the  subject  referred  to  above,  I  received  a  telegram 
from  Colonel  Ilges,  requesting  me  to  obtain  permission  to  make  these 
credits.  This  telegram  I  made  no  reply  to.  On  my  return  to  New 
York  yesterday  morning  I  heard  that  Colonel  Ilges  had  made  the  credits. 
I  sent  for  him  and  asked  him  by  whose  order  or  direction  he  had  clone 
so.  He  referred  me  to  your  telegram  of  March  5,  addressed  to  Captain 
H.  J.  Mills,  provost  marshal  at  Newark,  New  Jersey,  for  his  authority. 
I  informed  him  (Colonel  Ilges)  that  I  did  not  think  that  you  intended, 
by  the  telegram  referred  to,  to  convey  any  order  or  authority  to  Captain 
Mills  to  credit  bounty- jumpers  and  deserters;  that  your  telegram  was 
intended  to  only  authorize  the  crediting  of  such  men  as  were  regularly 
and  legitimately  enlisted  previous  to  the  Friday  on  which  it  was  un 
derstood  that  none  but  jumpers  and  deserters  were  to  be  enlisted.  I  have 
advised  Colonel  Ilges  to  go  to  Washington  to-night,  and  to  make  such 
explanations  in  reference  to  this  matter  as  you  may  require.  These  ex 
planations  I  trust  will  be  satisfactory. 

* '  I  am,  general,  very  respectfully  yours, 

"L.  C.  BAKER, 
' '  Colonel  and  Special  Agent  War  Department. 

' '  Brig.  Gen.  JAMES  B.  FRY, 

"  Frowst  Marshal  General  U.  S.t  Washington,  I).  C. 

A  true  copy : 

' '  GEO.  E.  SCOTT, 
' '  Brevet  Lieutenant  Colonel,   U.  8.   Volunteers. ' ' 

' '  WAR  DEPARTMENT,  PROVOST  MARSHAL  GENERAL'  s  BUREAU, 

"  Washington,  D.  C.,  March  29,  1865. 

' i  COLONEL  :  By  the  course  of  things  in  reference  to  bounty- jump 
ers  taken  at  Hoboken,  Mayor  Cleveland,  of  Newark,  is  placed  in  a  very 
unfortunate  position.  If  possible,  he  should  be  relieved  from  it. 
Under  date  of  March  23  I  directed  Colonel  Ilges  to  return  the  money  in 
his  possession  to  the  parties  who  advanced  it  as  bounties  for  these  men, 
the  credits  for  them  being  disallowed,  and  the  money  still  in  his  posses 
sion.  It  seems  that  under  this  order,  reported  by  telegraph  to  you  on 
the  24th  of  March,  Colonel  Ilges  has  delivered  the  money  in  whole  or 
part  to  Theodore  Allen,  broker,  and  perhaps  to  some  other  brokers,  and 
that  Mayor  Cleveland  is  unable  to  regain  possession  of  it. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-PRY   CONTROVERSY.  285 

' '  The  proper  method  of  disposing  of  this  business  has  all  the  time 
seemed  to  me  plain  enough;  it  is  this:  to  allow  no  credits  for  the 
bounty-jumpers,  men  who  have  already  been  enlisted  and  credited 
several  times  over,  but  to  credit  any,  if  there  be  any,  who  are  Ixmajide 
recruits,  and  not  jumpers.  To  return  to  the  town  authorities  all  the 
money  they  advanced  on  account  of  men  whom  we  do  not  credit. 

"  I  intended  my  order  to  carry  out  the  above  view,  but  it  seems 
that  the  money  advanced  by  Newark  has  been  returned  to  Allen,  the 
broker;  perhaps  it  was  turned  over  to  Colonel  Ilges,  through  Allen, 
and  on  this  account  he  returns  it  in  the  same  way.  However  that  may 
be,  Allen  should  return  the  money  to  Newark,  and  I  desire  you  to  see 
Allen  and  tell  him  so.  Neither  he  nor  any  one  else  has  any  right  to 
profit  in  the  matter.  All  necessary  expenses  connected  with  the  arrest 
of  these  jumpers,  and  the  enlistment  of  such  as  are  proper  recruits, 
must  be  paid  by  the  United  States,  so  that  there  is  no  loss  for  individ 
uals  in  the  case. 

'•  Please  report  to  me  as  soon  as  practicable  on  the  adjustment  of 
this  affair. 

"  You  had  better  send  for  Mayor  Cleveland  also. 

"Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

' '  JAMES  B.  FRY, 
"  Provost  Marshal  General. 

li  Colonel  L.  C.  BAKER, 

k '  No.  1 2  Vesey  street,  New  York  city. 

A  true  copy:  "  GEORGE  E.  SCOTT, 

"  Brevet  Lieutenant  Colonel  U.  S.  Vols." 

The  opening  argument  in  the  summing  up  before  the  committee 
was  made  orally  on  behalf  of  General  Fry  by  Mr.  Riddle,  and  was  re 
ported  by  one  of  the  reporters  of  the  House.  To  this  Mr.  Conkling  re 
plied.  Mr.  Riddle  rejoined  in  an  oral  argument,  but  which  was  not 
reported,  and  he  had  leave  of  the  committee  to  reduce  to  writing  this 
rejoinder,  confining  it  to  the  argument  actually  delivered,  this  to  be 
reported  to  the  House  along  with  the  other  arguments  in  the  case. 

No  member  of  the  committee  has  any  recollect  ion  of  either  of  these 
two  letters  being  either  given  in  evidence  in  the  case,  or  alluded  to  in 
any  part  of  the  argument ;  and  no  member  of  the  committee  has  any 
recollection  of  ever  seeing  the  original  of  either  of  these  letters,  and 
neither  of  them  has  yet  been  furnished  to  the  committee.  The  first 
knowledge  which  any  member  of  the  committee  had,  so  far  as  can  be 
recollected,  of  either  letter,  was  after  writing  the  foregoing  part  of 
this  report,  and  upon  seeing  the  printed  argument  of  Mr.  Riddle.  The 
committee  understand  it  to  be  now  claimed  by  the  counsel  for  Mr. 
Conkling  that  these  letters  were  not  offered  in  evidence,  nor  alluded  to 


286  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FEY    CONTROVERSY. 

in  the  argument,  and  doubts  are  expressed  to  the  committee  as  to  the 
authenticity  of  one  or  both.  General  Fry's  counsel  insist  that  these 
letters  were  given  in  evidence  and  commented  upon.  Since  the  com 
mittee's  attention  has  thus  been  called  to  them,  their  effect  in  the  case 
(treating  them  as  authentic)  has  been,  by  your  committee,  carefully 
considered,  and  they  do  not  change  any  conclusions  submitted  in  this 
report  to  which  your  committee  had  come  before  they  were  seen. 
These  letters  never  having  been  in  the  possession  of  any  member  of  the 
committee,  the  committee  cannot,  of  course,  make  any  decision  what 
ever  as  to  whether  these  alleged  copies  are  copies  of  genuine  letters  of 
the  dates  they  bear;  but  the  committee  submit  these  alleged  copies 
with  this  explanation,  that  the  House  and  all  parties  may  have  the 
benefit  of  them. 

Your  committee  report  to  the  House  the  argument  of  Mr.  Riddle, 
as  printed  by  him,  with  the  above  statement,  as  to  its  correspondence 
with  the  argument  made  to  the  committee.  They  do  this  because  the 
committee  are  not  willing  to  deprive  General  Fry  of  any  fact  or  argu 
ment  in  his  defence  which  he  may  desire  to  bring  to  the  attention  of 
the  House  to  influence  its  action,  although  it  may  not  have  been  sub 
mitted  to  the  committee  during  its  deliberations.  No  injustice,  so  far 
as  the  results  of  the  committee's  action  is  concerned,  can  be  done  to  Mr. 
Conkling  by  this  course  as  the  committee  came  to  no  conclusion  as  to 
the  subject-matter  of  these  letters  which  is  adverse  to  him. 

Your  committee  have  refrained  from  making  any  recommenda 
tion  as  to  proceedings  by  the  House  against  General  Fry  for  this  breach 
of  its  privileges.  The  reasons  for  this  are  in  part  to  be  found  in  the 
circumstances  connected  with  the  introduction  of  General  Fry's  letter 
into  this  house  by  one  of  its  members.  The  committee  doubted  whether 
the  House  would  be  inclined,  or  ought  to  adopt,  any  further  proceed 
ings  against  General  Fry  touching  this  violation  of  its  privileges,  ex 
cept  in  connexion  with  the  examination  of  Mr.  Blaine's  relations  to 
this  matter.  The  latter  is  wholly  outside  of  the  powers  of  your  com 
mittee.  *"• 

Besides,  all  of  the  facts,  and  also  the  conclusions  of  law  and  fact 
derived  therefrom  which  bear  upon  the  question  of  the  propriety  of  any 
further  proceedings  touching  this  breach  of  its  privileges,  are  by  your 
committee  here  submitted  to  the  House;  and  hence  the  House  will 
have  no  difficulty  in  deciding  what  its  action  should  be  in  this  regard, 
and  would  not  be  assisted  by  any  mere  opinion  or  recommendation  of 
the  committee  upon  a  question  lying  so  peculiarly  within  the  limits 
of  the  discretion  of  the  House,  and  to  be  determined  by  its  sense  of  fit 
ness. 

The  execution  of  that  part  of  the  order  of  the  House  in  relation  to 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FEY    CONTROVERSY.  287 

the  charges  against  General  Fry  and  his  bureau  will  involve  an  enor 
mous  amount  of  labor  and  of  expense,  and  can  be  properly  performed 
only  by  a  committee  having  a  competent  clerk  and  phonographic  re 
porter,  and  having  leave  to  sit  at  the  places  where  the  witnesses  reside, 
and  during  the  sessions  of  the  House,  and  also  during  the  recess  of 
Congress.  Whether,  now  that  the  war  is  over,  the  public  good  to  be 
attained  by  these  investigations  will  compensate  for  the  large  expense 
they  will  involve,  is  a  consideration  which  should  receive  the  attention 
of  the  House. 

Your  committee,  having  fully  and  carefully  considered  the  charges 
against  the  Hon.  Roscoe  Conkling  contained  in  the  letter  of  General 
Fry,  are  unanimously  of  opinion  that  none  of  the  charges  in  the  letter, 
whether  made  directly  and  openly,  or  indirectly  and  covertly,  have 
any  foundation  in  truth,  and  that  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Conkling  in  re 
lation  to  each  of  the  matters  investigated  by  the  committee  has  been 
above  reproach,  and  that  no  circumstances  sufficient  to  excite  reasona 
ble  suspicion  have  arisen  which  could  justify  or  excuse  the  attack  made 
upon  him  in  the  letter  of  General  Fry. 

The  several  charges  against  the  Hon.  Roscoe  Conkling,  contained 
in  the  letter  of  General  Fry,  being  unsupported  by  the  testimony  in  any 
one  material  particular,  although  ample  opportunity  was  afforded,  at 
the  cost  of  much  time  and  expense,  to  enable  the  \vriter  of  that  letter 
to  furnish  his  proofs,  the  committee  ought  not  to  refrain  from  the  ex 
pression  of  their  condemnation  of  the  deliberate  act  of  a  public  func 
tionary  in  traducing  the  official  as  well  as  the  personal  character  of  a 
member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States  by  the  pub 
lication  of  a  libel  which  he  was  so  illy  prepared  to  sustain.  Indignities 
offered  to  the  character  or  proceedings  of  the  national  legislature  by  li 
bellous  assaults  have  been  resented  and  punished  both  in  England  and 
the  United  States  as  breaches  of  privilege ;  and  such  assaults  upon  the 
official  character  of  members  have  been  held  punishable  as  indignities 
committed  against  the  House  itself.  The  reason  for  this  rests  upon 
the  same  ground  as  that  which  justifies  the  exercise  of  similar  authority 
to  punish  for  attempts  by  personal  violence,  menaces,  or  bribes,  to  in 
fluence  the  conduct  of  members  in  their  official  capacity. 

Your  committee  deem  it  proper  most  earnestly  to  protest  against 
the  practice  which  has  obtained,  to  some  extent,  of  causing  letters 
from  persons  not  members  of  the  House  to  be  read  as  a  part  of  a  per 
sonal  explanation,  in  which  the  motives  of  members  are  criticised, 
their  conduct  censured,  and  they  are  called  to  answer  for  words  spoken 
in  debate.  Such  attacks  upon  members,  made  in  the  House  itself, 
and  published  in  its  proceedings,  and  scattered  broadcast  to  the  world 
at  the  expense  of  the  government,  are,  in  the  opinion  of  your  commit- 


288 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


tee.  an  improper  check  upon  the  freedom  of  debate,  a  violation  of  the 
privileges,  and  an  infraction  of  the  dignity  of  the  House. 

Your  committee  submit,  for  the  consideration  of  the  House,  the 
following  resolutions,  and  recommend  their  adoption: 

Resolved,  That  all  the  statements  contained  in  the  letter  of  General 
James  B.  Fry  to  Hon.  James  G.  Blaine,  a  member  of  this  House,  bear 
ing  date  the  27th  of  April,  A.D.  1866,  and  which  was  read  in  this 
House  on  the  30th  of  April,  A.D.  1866,  in  so  far  as  such  statements 
impute  to  the  Hon.  Roscoe  Conkling,  a  member  of  this  House,  any 
criminal,  illegal,  unpatriotic,  or  otherwise  improper  conduct  or  mo 
tives,  either  as  to  the  matter  of  his  procuring  himself  to  be  employed 
by  the  government  of  the  United  States  in  the  prosecution  of  military 
offences  in  the  state  of  New  York,  in  the  management  of  such  prose 
cutions,  in  taking  compensation  therefor,  or  in  any  other  charge,  are 
wholly  without  foundation  in  truth ;  and  for  their  publication  there 
were,  in  the  judgment  of  this  House,  no  facts  connected  with  said  pros 
ecutions  furnishing  either  a  palliation  or  an  excuse. 

Itesolved,  That  General  Fry,  an  officer  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  and  head  of  one  of  its  military  bureaus,  in  writing  and 
publishing  these  accusations  named  in  the  preceding  resolution,  and 
which,  owing  to  the  crimes  and  wrongs  which  they  impute  to  a  mem 
ber  of  this  body,  are  of  a  nature  deeply  injurious  to  the  official  and 
personal  character,  influence,  and  privileges  of  such  member,  and  their 
publication  originating,  as  in  the  judgment  of  the  House  they  did,  in 
no  misapprehension  of  facts,  but  in  the  resentment  and  passion  of  their 
author,  was  guilty  of  a  gross  violation  of  the  privileges  of  such  mem 
ber  and  of  this  House,  and  his  conduct  in  that  regard  merits  and  re 
ceives  its  unqualified  disapprobation. 

SAMUEL  SHELLABARGER, 

Chairman, 
W.  WINDOM. 
B.   M.  BOYER. 
B.  C.  COOK. 
SAMUEL  L.  WARNER. 

PROVOST  MARSHAL'S  BUREAU — AGAIN. 
Mr.  Spalding.  By  the  indulgence  of  the  chair 
man  of  the  committee,  I  beg  leave  to  present  to  the 
House  the  memorial  of  Mr.  Riddle,  counsel  for  General 
Fry,  together  with  a  portion  of  the  evidence  which  he 
claims  was  offered  to  tbe  committee  by  General  Fry, 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  289 

which  he  asks  may  be  made  a  part  of  the  record  in  the 
case. 

The  Speaker.     Unanimous  consent  is  necessary. 

Mr.  Hale.     I  object. 

Mr.  Stevens.  I  certainly  object.  It  would  be 
outside  of  all  precedent. 

Mr.  Spalding.  Very  well ;  I  have  discharged  my 
duty. 

Mr.  Shellabarger.  I  will  make  a  statement  to  the 
House  in  regard  to  those  papers.  Since  the  committee 
made  its  report  to  the  House  its  attention  has  been 
invited  to  the  papers  which  have  been  referred  to  by 
my  colleague,  and  they  have  received  the  attention  of 
the  committee.  Although  the  papers  are  not  before 
the  House,  I  desire,  in  justice  to  the  committee,  to 
make  a  statement  in  reference  to  the  matter.  These 
papers  relate  in  the  main  to  the  Hoboken  matter,  a 
matter  upon  which  the  committee  has  not  passed  in 
its  findings,  except  so  far  as  it  might  throw  light  upon 
the  animus  of  the  letter  to  Mr.  Elaine.  The  introduc 
tion  and  consideration  of  those  papers,  therefore,  could 
not  affect  any  conclusion  to  which  the  committee  came, 
except  in  regard  to  the  motives  for  writing  that  letter. 
There  is,  outside  of  these  papers,  what  the  committee 
deemed  abundant  evidence  to  settle  the  question  of  the 
animus  of  the  letter  and  to  bring  the  committee  unani 
mously  to  the  conclusion  which  it  attained  as  to  the 
motives  which  prompted  the  writing  of  that  letter ;  so 
that,  while  the  committee's  attention  was  not  drawn 
to  these  papers,  they  thus  considered  the  matter  of 
their  contents,  and  determined  nothing  contained  in 
them  in  any  possible  view  of  this  case  affecting  any 
conclusion  to  which  the  committee  came. 


290  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-PRY    CONTROVERSY. 

Another  statement  I  have  to  make  is,  that  those 
letters,  if  they  are  of  value  to  General  Fry,  will  be 
available  for  his  defense  in  the  further  prosecution  of 
this  matter,  should  the  House  deem  any  further  prose 
cution  proper  under  the  resolution  already  adopted. 
So  that  it  seems  to  me  in  no  view  can  any  prejudice 
be  worked  to  General  Fry  by  the  exclusion  for  the 
present  of  these  letters. 

Another  statement  I  desire  here  to  make  is,  that 
the  two  letters  deemed  most  material  by  the  counsel 
for  General  Fry,  the  only  two,  if  I  remember  correctly, 
which  he  deemed  of  value  enough  to  insert  in  his 
printed  argument,  are  now  introduced  into  the  report 
of  the  committee,  perhaps  irregularly,  but  introduced 
in  extreme  solicitude  that  nothing  should  be  excluded 
that  could  be  of  service  to  General  Fry.  That  matter 
is  fully  explained  in  the  report  of  the  committee.  As 
I  have  said,  the  two  principal  letters  contained  in  this 
memorial  now  appear  in  the  report  of  the  committee. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  House  has  heard,  or  had 
an  opportunity  of  hearing,  a  large  portion  of  this  re 
port.  The  committee  felt  forced  to  make  it  volumi 
nous,  as  it  is,  on  account  of  the  impossibility  of  making 
it  less  voluminous  and  yet  presenting  fairly  and  justly 
the  facts  bearing  on  this  important  question  of  the 
privileges  of  the  House,  and  of  a  member  of  it. 

I  trust,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  not  be  deemed  in  doing 
what  I  am  about  to  do  as  neglecting  the  execution  of 
the  duties  which  I  owe  to  this  important  question  of 
privilege  in  omitting  to  detain  the  House  in  again  pre 
senting  what  has  been  fully  represented  in  the  report 
of  the  committee.  I  say  I  will  refrain  from  the  dis- 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  291 

cussion  of  this  question  at  this  time.  Unless  some 
thing  shall  be  said  by  other  members  of  the  House 
requiring  notice  I  shall  content  myself  by  yielding  the 
floor  and  permitting  any  other  gentleman  who  may 
wish  to  do  so  to  speak  to  this  question.  I  shall  ask  the 
House  to  second  the  previous  question  so  that  we  shall 
flx  the  time  for  closing  debate,  disposing  of  the  case 
to-day.  If  there  be  no  member  who  desires  to  be 
heard,  I  ask  the  House  at  once  to  order  the  main 
question. 

Mr.  Davis.     I  ask  the  gentleman  to  yield  to  me. 

Mr.  Skellabarger.  For  whatever  time  the  gentle 
man  wants. 

Mr.  Davis.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  shall  occupy  but  a 
few  moments  in  submitting  to  the  House  one  or  two 
considerations  connected  with  the  subject  before  us. 
I  shall  not  enlarge  upon  the  evidence,  or  upon  the 
clear,  able,  arid  conclusive  report  founded  upon  it,  ex 
onerating  completely  and  entirely  the  reputation  of 
my  colleague  [Mr.  OonMmg]  from  the  gross  aspersions 
cast  upon  it  in  the  communication  which  the  com 
mittee  have  with  entire  unanimity  pronounced  a  false 
and  malicious  libel. 

The  question,  Mr.  Speaker,  is  one  of  grave  im 
portance,  affecting  the  right  of  a  member  of  this  House 
to  utter  his  sentiments  and  opinions  in  respect  to  the 
action  of  any  public  officer  or  the  administration  of 
any  Department  of  the  Government,  legitimately  be 
fore  the  House,  without  being  confronted  by  a  libel 
upon  his  private  or  public  character,  read  at  the  Clerk's 
desk  at  the  suggestion  of  a  member  upon  the  floor. 
I  am  happy  this  investigation  has  been  ordered  by  the 


292  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FEY    CONTEOVEESY. 

House,  and  I  trust  the  report  of  the  committee  has  had 
a  due  effect  on  the  House,  and  that  the  action  of  the 
committee  in  reference  to  the  assault  against  the 
character  of  my  honorable  colleague  [Mr.  Conlcling] 
will  meet  with  its  unanimous  approval.  I  know  not 
why  this  House  should  listen  with  any  other  feelings 
than  those  of  perfect  indignation  at  the  attempt  made 
by  an  officer  of  the  Government  to  assail  the  character 
of  a  member  of  this  House  for  commenting  on  the 
manner  in  which  that  officer  discharged  his  public 
duties. 

What  is  the  history  of  the  matter  ?  In  legitimate 
debate  on  the  section  of  the  Army  bill  relating  to  the 
Provost  Marshal's  Bureau,  the  honorable  member  from 
New  York  [Mr.  Corikling]  made  some  remarks  to 
which  the  Provost  Marshal  General  took  exceptions. 
In  answer,  not  by  way  of  legitimate  argument  on  the 
subject  before  the  House,  the  gentleman  from  Maine 
had  a  letter  from  General  Fry  read  at  the  desk  con 
taining  the  grossest  charges  against  the  honorable 
member  from  New  York  [Mr.  ConMing]  involving 
personal  turpitude  and  corruption,  as  well  as  mal 
feasance  in  office.  These  charges  were  such  as,  if  true, 
would  subject  my  colleague  [Mr.  Conkling~\  to  de 
served  reproach,  and  to  the  loss  of  public  or  private 
confidence.  They  have  been  carefully  and  patiently 
investigated  by  the  committee ;  abundant  time  was 
offered  to  establish  their  truth,  and  yet  the  author  of 
these  grave  charges  failed  signally  either  to  prove  or 
even  attempt  to  prove  that  he  was  sustained  by  one 
single  fact  in  justification. 

The    important    inquiry     arises,     Mr.    Speaker, 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


293 


whether  members  are  thus  to  be  assailed  by  persons 
outside  of  the  House  for  words  uttered  in  legitimate 
debate  in  the  House,  affecting  the  action  of  any  public 
officer  or  the  administration  of  any  department  or 
bureau  of  the  Government.  If  such  a  precedent  shall 
be  established,  I  see  no  end  to  these  libellous  attacks 
springing  from  what  any  member  may  deem  it  his 
duty  to  utter  in  regard  to  the  action  of  any  public 
officer. 

But  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  another  considera 
tion  connected  with  this  subject.  The  letter  of  Gen 
eral  Fry  was  addressed  to  a  member  of  this  House, 
and  at  the  instance  of  that  member  it  was  read  at  the 
Clerk's  desk  in  vindication  of  remarks  before  made  by 
him  upon  the  relations  existing  between  Mr.  Conkling 
and  General  Fry.  I  do  not  believe  that  any  member 
of  the  House  has  the  right  for  any  such  purpose  to 
send  up  to  the  Clerk's  desk  a  letter  from  a  third 
party  containing  libellous  matter  affecting  another 
member,  and  to  ask  that  it  be  read  to  the  House  and 
circulated,  through  the  Globe,  over  the  country.  If 
this  be  not  a  breach  of  privilege,  I  am  unable  to  say 
what  is.  If  it  be  not,  any  party  designing  it  may  pub 
lish  the  most  offensive  and  improper  matter  in  respect 
to  a  member  and  yet  screen  himself  from  liability  on 
the  ground  that  he  was  using  information  im 
parted  by  another  and  incorporating  into  his  speech, 
and  thus  spreading  a  libel  upon  the  permanent  records 
of  the  country.  If  we  admit  that  principle,  then,  as  I 
said  before,  there  is  no  end  to  the  libels  which  may  be 
read  here  against  members  for  the  expression  of  their 
opinions  in  this  Hall. 


294 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


Mr.  Woodbridge.  I  desire  to  ask  my  friend 
whether  he  thinks  it  quite  proper  or  dignified  for  any 
member  of  this  House,  in  discussing  a  public  question, 
to  bring  into  discredit  the  name  of  a  public  officer, 
when  that  officer  has  no  chance  upon  the  floor  of  the 
House  to  defend  himself. 

Mr.  Davis.  I  will  answer  my  friend.  For  the 
very  reason  that  the  parties  are  public  officers,  that 
they  are  charged  with  the  duties  of  official  administra 
tion,  that  they  are  servants  of  the  Government,  and 
that  Congress  has  not  only  the  right,  but  is  bound  to 
examine  into  their  action,  I  aver  that  a  member  may 
rightfully  criticise  it.  I  say  it  involves  no  breach  of 
privilege,  and  no  discourtesy,  for  any  member  of  this 
House  to  speak  in  regard  to  the  conduct  of  a  public 
officer  of  this  Government  legitimately  before  it  for 
consideration  in  such  terms  as  he  may  think  proper. 

If  charges  were  made  by  my  colleague  against  the 
administration  by  General  Fry  of  the  affairs  of  the 
Provost  Marshal's  Bureau,  he,  as  an  officer  of  the 
Army,  charged  with  malfeasance  in  a  military  duty, 
had  a  right  to  demand  from  the  War  Department  a 
court  of  inquiry  to  investigate  his  conduct.  He  has 
here  a  perfect  redress  ;  or  he  might  have  appealed  to 
this  House,  demanding  that  a  committee  be  charged 
with  the  examination  of  the  alleged  malfeasance,  and 
that  the  author  of  the  charges  be  required  to  substan 
tiate  them  or  retract  them.  Sir,  the  very  necessities 
of  the  public  service  require  that  the  Representatives 
of  the  people  shall  be  untrammelled  upon  this  floor  in 
their  criticisms  upon  the  actions  of  the  public  servants ; 
and  if  the  lips  of  members  are  to  be  sealed  in  respect 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FBY    CONTROVEESY  295 

to  official  administration,  I  know  not  in  what  way 
the  public  are  to  be  informed  on  subjects  of  the  deep 
est  general  interest,  in  connection  with  which  indi 
vidual  agents  and  officers  may  merit  either  censure  or 
praise. 

But,  sir,  my  object  is  not  to  enter  into  detail  upon 
the  facts  of  this  case  so  abundantly  reported,  but 
rather  to  ascertain,  by  some  appropriate  mode  of  in 
quiry,  what  are  the  restrictions  which  should  be  al 
lowed  or  imposed  upon  this  practice  of  presenting 
letters  containing  libellous  matter  to  be  read  as  part  of 
debate  in  this  House.  Therefore,  at  a  proper  time, 
now  or  hereafter,  I  will  offer  a  resolution  simply  ask 
ing  an  investigation  by  the  same  committee  as  to  the 
fact  whether  any  breach  of  privilege  has  been  com 
mitted  by  any  acts  of  this  kind  in  the  introduction  of 
any  such  letter  by  any  person.  And  I  am  induced  to 
do  that  more  from  the  consideration  that  I  believe  we 
must  put  our  foot  upon  this  practice  or  we  must  be 
involved  in  these  interminable  difficulties  and  personal 
explanations.  I  wish  to  say  that  I  do  this  without 
any  sort  of  disrespect  to  any  member  upon  this  floor, 
without  any  personal  feeling  whatever,  but  from  a  sole 
desire  to  preserve  that  order  and  decorum  in  this  House 
which  should  belong  to  its  deliberations. 

Mr.  Hale.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  propose  to  dis 
cuss  the  report  of  this  committee  or  the  resolutions 
submitted  by  them,  but  I  simply  seek  the  floor  in  con 
sequence  of  my  colleague  [Mr.  Davis]  having  intimated 
that  he  would  move  a  resolution  of  reference  as  to  the 
rights  of  the  House,  and  the  rights  of  members  of  the 
House,  in  regard  to  the  publication  of  libels  like  that 


296 


CONKLING    AND    ELAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


reported  upon  by  the  committee  ;  and  I  rise  for  the 
purpose  of  suggesting  to  my  colleague  that  when  he 
offers  that  resolution  he  make  it  a  little  more  compre 
hensive,  so  as  to  cover  another  branch  of  this  case, 
which  has  come  to  my  knowledge  within  the  last  two 
days.  The  report  of  the  committee  has  been  exhaus 
tive  of  the  subject  committed  to  it  so  far  as  affects  the 
charges  brought  against  my  colleague  in  the  libellous 
letter  which  was  read  at  the  Clerk's  desk. 

Since  the  hearing  before  the  committee  was  term 
inated  and  since  their  report  was  made  to  the  House, 
I  have  received  through  the  mail,  and  I  understand 
other  members  have  received  the  same  document,  a 
pamphlet  bearing  the  printed  signature  of  James  B. 
Fry,  whom  I  understand  to  be  this  same  Provost  Mar 
shal  General  Fry,  purporting  to  be  instructions  by  Mr. 
Fry  to  his  counsel  for  his  defense  before  this  commit 
tee.  It  strikes  me  as  a  little  singular  that  the  private  in 
structions  of  the  person  on  trial  to  his  counsel  for  the 
defense  should  be  printed  and  circulated  among  the 
body  which  was  to  pass  upon  the  subject  after  the 
counsel  had  been  heard  in  full  before  the  committee, 
and  his  argument  printed  for  the  benefit  of  the  House. 
In  that  pamphlet  I  find  this  very  remarkable  language, 
which  I  think  involves,  if  possible,  a  higher  breach  of 
privilege  even  than  the  original  one.  For  bear  in 
mind  that  this  is  printed,  or  at  least  circulated,  after 
the  report  of  the  committee,  falsifying  the  original 
charge. 

This  pamphlet  says  : 

"Of  the  principal  charges   [contained   in   my  letter]  I  maintain 
and  reassert  not  only  the  substantial  but  the  literal  correctness." 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


297 


In  other  words,  after  a  fair  trial  and  examination 
before  a  committee,  with  every  opportunity  afforded 
him  to  maintain  his  original  charges,  and  utterly  fail 
ing  to  produce  any  evidence  whatever  to  maintain 
them,  a  pamphlet  is  here  circulated  in  which  the  orig 
inal  libel  is  reasserted  in  its  full  length  and  breadth, 
and  in  all  its  details.  I  submit  that  there  is  a  ques 
tion  of  privilege  for  the  examination,  consideration, 
and  action  of  this  House. 

Another  word  in  regard  to  this  document.  It 
states  by  way  of  preface  that  this  was  a  letter  of  in 
structions  which  was  addressed  by  General  Fry  to  his 
counsel,  Hon.  A.  G.  Riddle,  made  in  compliance  with 
the  requirements  of  the  committee.  If  that  were  so 
truthfully,  of  course  these  instructions  would  be  privi 
leged,  as  long  as  confined  to  their  proper  and  legiti 
mate  use,  but  not  when  published  for  the  reading  of 
anybody  besides  the  counsel.  But  most  singularly 
Mr.  Riddle,  in  his  argument  as  the  counsel  for  General 
Fry,  states  to  the  committee  that  he  has  had  no  oppor 
tunity  of  consulting  with  his  client  and  has  received 
no  instructions  from  him,  oral  or  written,  except  upon 
a  single  point,  while  these  instructions  cover  the  whole 
case.  If  rhe  counsel  told  the  truth  in  his  statement  to 
the  committee,  it  would  appear  that  this  officer  of  the 
Army  of  the  United  States  was  not  only  guilty  of 
publishing  a  libel,  and  a  pronounced  libel,  on  a  mem 
ber  of  the  House,  but  was  guilty  of  doing  it  on  the 
false  pretense  that  it  was  originally  prepared  and  sent 
forth  as  instructions  to  counsel  when  it  was  not  the 
fact,  and  when  no  such  instructions  had  been  issued. 

I  therefore  ask  my  colleague  [Mr.  Davis^]  when 


298 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


lie  introduces  his  resolution  to  inquire  into  the  rights 
of  members,  to  include  the  question  whether  the 
House  shall  submit  to  such  publications  as  that  con 
tained  in  the  pamphlet  which  I  hold  in  my  hand. 

Mr.  Shellabwrger.  The  gentleman  from  New 
York  has  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  House  this 
letter  of  General  Fry,  and  it  seems  to  be  proper  that 
I  should  allude  to  his  statements  contained  in  that 
letter.  The  first  is  a  statement  that  a  request  was 
made  by  General  Fry  to  the  investigating  committee 
for  the  privilege  of  preparing  and  submitting  by  him 
self  or  by  his  counsel  a  written  plea,  which  request 
was  not  granted. 

Now,  I  really  cannot  conceive  what  it  is  that  that 
statement  refers  to  unless  it  be  this :  that  at  the  time 
we  began  to  examine  this  case,  on  the  first  morning  of 
our  meeting,  General  Fry  applied  to  be  permitted  to 
make  a  written  statement  to  the  committee,  introduc 
ing  his  case  and  his  evidence,  the  written  statement 
to  be  unsworn.  He  was  met  by  a  statement  that  any 
evidence  that  was  to  be  considered  by  the  committee 
must  come  in  the  usual  way  as  clearly  and  properly 
authenticated  papers  or  the  sworn  testimony  of  wit 
nesses,  and  that  he  would  be  required  to  present  any 
showing  against  a  member  of  the  House  in  that  way. 
Nothing  else  occurred  excluding  General  Fry  from 
the  very  largest  latitude  in  presenting  all  the  views 
of  his  counsel  and  of  himself  upon  every  possible 
question.  Excluding  myself  from  the  compliment,  I 
may  say  that  the  committee  was  a  miracle  of  patience 
in  the  way  of  admitting  and  hearing  arguments  and 
testimony  on  both  sides. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  299 

And  there  is  another  statement  here  that  is 
equally  singular,  considering  all  the  circumstances  of 
the  case.  It  is  on  the  first  page  of  this  pamphlet. 
He  says: 

"  I  formally  applied  to  the  committee  for  a  copy  of  the  record, 
the  testimony  having  been  phonographically  reported,  and  offered  to 
pay  the  expenses  of  transcribing  it,  but  was  refused. ' ' 

Now  it  will  occur  to  every  member  of  the  House 
that  it  would  be  a  very  singular  request  to  make  of  a 
committee  of  this  House,  whose  proceedings  are  con 
fidential  and  not  to  be  disclosed  except  by  the  leave 
of  the  House,  that  it  should  be  required  to  permit  its 
evidence  to  go  out  into  the  town,  into  the  offices  of 
lawyers,  and  to  be  hawked  about  the  streets.  Of 
course  the  committee  would  not  permit  the  evidence 
to  be  taken  from  the  custody  of  the  committee  or  of 
its  clerk.  The  request  was  made  to  be  permitted  to 
take  copies  of  the  evidence.  The  request  was  met  by 
a  statement  that  the  evidence  could  not  be  taken  from 
the  control  of  the  committee  or  the  custody  of  its 
clerk ;  but  the  very  fullest  opportunity  should  be  had 
at  all  times  to  use  the  evidence  in  the  committee 
room,  and  under  the  supervision  and  care  of  the  clerk, 
he  seeing  to  it  that  the  proper  orders  and  directions 
of  the  House  were  observed  in  that  regard.  And  I 
am  surprised  that  a  statement  of  the  character  I  have 
read  should  be  made,  under  all  the  circumstances,  by 
General  Fry. 

Mr.  Stevens.  As  the  evidence  has  not  been  read, 
I  desire  to  know  whether  I  understand  the  purport  of 
it.  I  desire  to  inquire  whether,  when  General  Fry 
was  offered  to  be  examined,  he  or  his  counsel  insisted 


300 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


that  he  should  be  called  by  the  committee,  so  that  he 
could  not  be  prosecuted. 

Mr.  Shellabarger.  In  reply  to  the  inquiry  of  the 
gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  Stevens]  I  will 
state  this :  The  committee,  as  has  already  been  noticed, 
have  confined  their  investigations  for  the  present  to 
the  question  of  privilege  affecting  the  rights  of  the 
gentleman  from  New  York  [Mr.  Corikling~\.  The 
committee  so  confining  its  investigations  deemed  it 
fair  and  proper  that  the  gentleman  from  New  York 
should  be  permitted  to  control  the  matter  of  the  intro 
duction  of  testimony  affecting  his  personal  privileges, 
subject,  of  course,  to  the  right  of  the  committee  to 
take  care  of  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  House. 
Taking  that  view  of  the  matter,  the  committee  did 
not  feel  at  liberty  to  call,  as  they  might  have  done, 
General  Fry  upon  the  motion  of  the  committee  itself. 
They  declined  to  do  that  for  the  reason  that  they 
deemed  it  just  and  proper  to  the  gentleman  from  New 
York,  this  being  a  question  so  personal  to  himself,  to 
allow  him  to  control  the  introduction  or  the  non- 
introduction  of  the  testimony  of  General  Fry.  That 
was  the  position  of  the  committee.  Of  course  the 
committee  might  have  called,  upon  its  own  motion, 
General  Fry  as  a  witness.  It  did  not  do  so  for  the 
reason  I  have  stated. 

Then  the  committee  had  this  question  before 
them  :  The  request  was  formally  made  and  put  upon 
the  record  that  the  gentleman  from  New  York  should 
be  permitted  to  cross-examine  General  Fry.  An  appeal 
was  made  to  the  committee  that  it  should  put  General 
Fry  in  the  position  of  a  witness  for  cross-examination, 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  301 

and  not  have  him  made  the  witness  of  the  gentleman 
from  New  York,  the  gentleman  from  New  York  stat 
ing  distinctly  that  he  declined  to  put  himself  in  the 
position  of  calling  General  Fry,  so  as  that  thereby  he 
should  be  precluded  from  contradicting  or  impeaching 
any  evidence  he  might  give.  After  that  appeal  was 
thus  formally  made  to  the  committee,  and  the  commit 
tee  had  refused  to  permit  General  Fry  to  be  cross- 
examined,  requiring  Mr.  Conkling,  if  he  desired  to 
use  the  testimony  of  General  Fry,  to  call  him,  and  put 
him  in  the  position  of  a  witness  called  by  himself, 
then  an  appeal  was  made  to  the  other  side  to 
know  whether  General  Fry  was  to  be  examined  ; 
and  an  invitation  that  he  should  be  examined  as  a 
witness  for  the  other  side  was  repeatedly  made.  But 
that  invitation  was  all  the  time  declined,  and  Mr. 
Conkling  was  deprived  of  the  benefit  of  the  examina 
tion  of  General  Fry  unless  he  would  call  him  as  his 
own  witness. 

Mr.  Stevens.  Did  the  counsel  of  General  Fry  join 
in  declining? 

Mr.  Sliellabarger.  That  is  my  understanding  of 
the  matter. 

Mr.  Stevens.  The  explanations  made  by  the  com 
mittee  are  ample  ;  they  require  no  further  vindication, 
if  any  was  necessary,  of  their  course.  It  was,  perhaps, 
unfortunate  that  this  letter  was  not  addressed  at  once 
to  the  House,  instead  of  coming  through  a  member  of 
the  House,  for  then  I  suppose  it  would  have  become 
a  part  of  the  records  of  the  House.  I  understand  that 
the  letter  is  not  now  on  the  Journal  of  the  House. 


302  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVEESY. 

If  that  be  so,  it  will  preclude  the  motion  which  I 
would  otherwise  be  disposed  to  make. 

The  Speaker.  It  is  in  the  Globe,  but  not  on  the 
Journal. 

Mr.  Stevens.  The  inquiry  instituted,  the  appoint 
ment  of  this  committee,  did  not  bring  the  letter  upon 
the  Journal  ? 

The  Speaker.     It  did  not. 

Mr.  Stevens.  Then  I  cannot  make  the  motion  I 
would  have  made.  All  I  have  to  say  is  that  I  do  not 
know  that  a  more  causeless,  gross  attack  has  ever  been 
made  upon  a  member  of  this  House,  either  here  or 
elsewhere,  than  that  contained  in  that  letter.  I  must 
do  the  gentleman  from  Maine  [Mr.  Blaine\,  now 
absent,  the  justice  to  suppose  that  he  was  entirely 
uninformed  of  the  contents  of  the  letter  or  he  would 
never  have  presented  it  to  the  House. 

I  had  hope,  however,  that  the  committee  would 
go  a  little  further.  In  reference  to  one  of  the  transac 
tions  mentioned  in  the  report — the  Hoboken  matter,  I 
believe — in  which  some  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dol 
lars  were  absorbed  by  somebody,  there  were,  if  the 
evidence  is  to  be  believed,  three  parties  implicated. 
Two  of  them,  I  believe,  are  now  in  the  penitentiary. 
The  third  is  General  Fry.  Why  is  it  that  some  steps 
have  not  been  taken  by  the  committee  to  send  him 
there  ?  It  is  possible  that  the  committee  had  not  the 
power.  But  after  the  exposure  which  has  been 
made  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  the  dmty  of  the  law 
officers  of  the  Government  to  prosecute  him ;  and  un 
less  the  evidence  contained  in  this  book  can  be  dis 
proved  he  should  be  convicted  and  confined  in  the 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  303 

penitentiary.  I  cannot  conceive  any  reason  why  there 
should  not  be  at  once  instituted  a  proceeding  for  the 
prosecution  of  General  Fry.  This  would  give  him  an 
opportunity  to  vindicate  himself  in  some  other  way 
than  by  posthumous  letters.  I  suppose,  however,  the 
committee  did  not  feel  themselves  authorized  to  take 
action  with  a  view  to  the  prosecution  of  General  Fry. 

Mr.  Raymond.  I  would  like  to  make  a  sugges 
tion  to  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania.  In  referring 
to  the  case  in  which  two  of  the  parties  implicated  are 
now  in  the  penitentiary,  the  gentleman  spoke  of  it  as 
the  Hoboken  matter.  I  believe  it  was  the  Elmira 
case. 

Mr.  Stevens.  I  believe  the  gentleman  is  correct. 
I  happened  to  see  the  name  of  the  other  case  here  and 
was  misled  by  it.  The  case  I  meant  to  refer  to  was  the 
Elmira  fraud. 

Mr.  Sliellabarger.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  will  state  to  the 
House — I  would  not  have  stated  it  but  for  the  inquiry 
just  presented  by  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania- 
why  the  committee,  after  having  found  a  flagrant  vio 
lation  of  the  privileges  of  a  member  of  the  House  and 
of  the  House  itself,  stopped  without  recommending 
any  proceeding  by  the  House  against  the  culprit.  The 
inquiry  is  very  pertinent,  one  which  would  naturally 
occur  to  every  mind,  and  one  which  received  the  care 
ful  attention  of  the  committee. 

The  committee  did  not  deem  it  outside  of  the 
powers  conferred  upon  it  by  the  resolution  to  recom 
mend  such  proceedings  against  General  Fry  as  the 
House  might  deem  to  be  due  in  the  premises.  The 
committee  reports  to  the  House  its  reason  for  omitting 


304  OONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

to  present  any  formal  resolution  upon  that  subject. 
I  will  state  those  reasons.  The  first,  which  is  not 
stated  in  the  report,  is  this  :  General  Fry  being  con 
nected  with  the  Government  and  a  member  of  the 
Executive  Department  thereof,  any  proceeding  by  this 
House  would  be  communicated  to  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  laying  the  facts  before  him.  At  any 
rate  this  is  the  judgment  of  a  majority  of  the  commit 
tee.  Now,  sir,  a  communication  to  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  laying  before  him  the  facts  in  re 
gard  to  this  matter,  might  now  be  made  by  the  House. 
The  committee  has  said  in  the  report  that  this  is  a 
matter  resting  so  peculiarly  within  the  discretion  of 
the  House,  a  matter  so  peculiarly  proper  to  be  de 
cided  by  its  sense  of  fitness,  that  a  mere  recommenda 
tion  or  opinion  of  the  committee  would  not  be  useful 
to  the  House.  The  committee  has  done  everything 
else  than  simply  express  its  opinion ;  I  mean  that  it 
has  done  everything  in  its  power  toward  aiding  the 
House  in  coming  to  a  just  conclusion  as  to  what  it 
should  do.  The  committee  has  reported  all  the  facts; 
it  has  reported  all  the  law  bearing  upon  the  facts  ;  but 
it  has  refrained  from  making  any  recommendation  as 
to  the  institution  of  further  proceedings  against  Gen 
eral  Fry. 

Then  there  was  another  reason — the  most  potent 
of  all — that  operated  upon  the  mind  of  the  committee 
in  omitting  to  present  any  further  resolution.  It  is 
that  the  breach  of  the  privileges  of  the  House  was  com 
mitted  so  entirely  in  conjunction  with  the  action  of  a 
member  of  this  House  that  the  two  acts  cannot  be  sep 
arated.  The  letter  is  written  containing  upon  its  face 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  305 

the  evidence  that  it  was  meant  to  be  used  somewhere, 
and  was  not  designed  simply  for  the  information  of  the 
gentleman  from  Maine  [Mr.  jBlaine],  to  whom  it  was 
addressed. 

There  were  other  facts  which  came  to  the  knowl 
edge  of  the  committee.  It  was  stated  to  the  commit 
tee,  for  instance,  that  no  complaint  was  made  by  Gen 
eral  Fry  that  Mr.  Blaine  had  violated  his  confidence 
or  wishes  in  presenting  it  to  the  House.  These  con 
siderations  induced  the  committee  to  believe  his  letter 
was  written  to  be  used  in  the  House  in  the  manner  in 
which  it  was  used  by  a  member  of  the  House.  There 
fore,  sir,  the  committee  was  brought  clearly  up  to  the 
question,  whether  further  proceedings  could  be  taken 
against  General  Fry  except  as  connected  with  those 
against  a  member  of  the  House,  one  of  them  having 
violated  the  privileges  of  the  House,  and  we  deemed  it 
fair  and  just  the  proceedings  should  be  a  unit  against 
both.  That,  I  believe,  answers  the  inquiry  of  the  gen 
tleman  from  Pennsylvania. 

I  do  not  wish  to  detain  the  House  longer.  I  re 
peat  what  has  been  said  in  the  report,  that  a  more 
careful  and  more  malicious  and  wanton  violation  of 
the  privileges  of  the  House  and  of  its  members  has 
not  been  brought  to  the  notice  of  any  member  of  the 
committee.  There  is  not  to  be  found  any  more  hurt 
ful  libel  upon  any  member  of  this  body  in  the  history 
of  its  proceedings.  It  is  due  to  ourselves,  it  is  due  to 
this  body,  if  we  are  to  preserve  the  dignity  of  the 
character  of  a  Representative  of  American  people,  that 
such  indignities  should  cease.  My  unwillingness  to 
detain  the  House  at  this  late  period  in  the  session  does 


306  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FEY    CONTROVERSY. 

not  grow  out  of  any  belief  on  my  part  that  this  is  not 
an  important  matter.  Gentlemen  of  the  House  of 
Representatives,  it  is  time  steps  were  taken  to  stop 
this  parade  of  plantation  manners  and  ruffianism  here 
at  the  centre  and  heart  of  the  nation  where  the  laws 
are  made,  and  where  law  is  esteemed  to  be  sublime 
and  sacred  in  its  sway.  I  have  not  spoken,  because 
the  matter  has  been  brought  so  eloquently  and  fully 
to  the  attention  of  the  House,  on  the  question  of  priv 
ilege  just  disposed  of.  It  has  fully  been  brought  to 
the  attention  of  the  House  by  the  report  of  the  com 
mittee.  I  am  unwilling  to  consume  the  time  of 
the  House,  but  I  am  unwilling  to  sit  down  without  say 
ing  the  House  should  do  this  justice  to  my  friend 
from  New  York,  [Mr.  Colliding ',]  a  justice  he  is  entitled 
to,  having  been  in  all  this  matter  in  reference  to  which 
he  was  assailed,  not  only  innocent,  but  eminently 
patriotic  and  valuable  step  by  step  to  his  Government 
at  a  time  of  imminent  peril.  It  is  due  to  him  and  the 
House  we  should  call  the  yeas  and  nays  expressing 
the  judgment  of  the  House  in  condemnation  of  this 
act  of  indignity  which  one  of  its  members  suffered. 
Unless  some  gentleman  desires  to  address  the  House, 
I  shall  now  demand  the  previous  question. 

Mr.  Wentw&rth.  I  ask  the  gentleman  to  yield  to 
me  for  five  minutes. 

Mr.  Shellabarger.     Certainly. 

Mr.  Wentworth.  Mr.  Speaker,  it  appears  to  me 
that  we  are  trying  the  wrong  man.  If  I  remember 
the  origin  of  this  case,  a  member  of  this  body  rose  in 
violation  of  the  rules  of  this  House  and  of  parliamen 
tary  courtesy  and  assailed  the  motives  of  the  gentle- 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


307 


man  from  New  York,  [Mr.  Corikling^]  and  in  justifi 
cation  of  that  assault,  a  few  days  afterward,  he  intro 
duced,  under  the  pretense  of  a  personal  explanation, 
a  letter  which  he  sent  to  the  Clerk  to  be  read. 

Mr.  Pike.  I  do  not  wish  to  mix  in  this  general 
exculpation  of  the  gentleman  from  New  York.  But 
I  want  to  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Illinois,  in  be 
half  of  my  colleague,  now  absent  on  account  of  sick 
ness,  that  he  did  not  bring  this  letter  before  the  House 
in  any  surreptitious  way. 

Mr.  WentworiJi.  I  did  not  so  charge.  If  I  re 
member  correctly,  he  asked  to  make  a  personal  ex 
planation. 

Mr.  Pike.  He  did  not.  I  presume  the  gentle 
man  does  not  mean  to  do  my  colleague  injustice. 

Mr.  Wentworth.     I  would  not  do  anyone  injustice. 

Mr.  Pike.  My  colleague  told  the  House  that  he 
had  such  a  letter,  and  asked  to  have  it  read.  He  did 
not  rise  to  a  personal  explanation  and  then  have  this 
letter  read. 

Mr.  Wentworth.  He  rose  to  a  personal  explana 
tion. 

Mr.  Pike.  The  record  of  the  Globe  will  show 
that  I  am  right.  The  House  was  fully  advised  by  my 
colleague  of  the  character  of  the  letter  when  he  offered 
it,  and  no  objection  was  made  to  its  being  read.  The 
committee  seem  to  have  fallen  into  the  same  error  as 
the  gentleman  from  Illinois,  and  thereupon  censure 
the  practice  of  introducing  letters  under  the  permission 
for  personal  explanation.  The  fact  was  that  my  col 
league  rose  stating  that  he  held  in  his  hand  a  letter 
from  General  Fry  who  he  considered  to  have  been  un- 


308 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


justly  assailed  in  a  previous  debate  in  the  House..  He 
asked  that  the  letter  should  be  read  as  a  matter  of  fair 
play.  No  objection  was  made.  The  gentleman  from 
New  York  consented,  if  he  could  have  an  opportunity 
to  reply. 

Mr.  ConMing.  The  gentleman  from  Maine  so  far 
as  he  refers  to  me  is  mistaken.  I  said,  simply  infer 
ring  that  the  letter  had  some  reference  to  me,  al 
though  ignorant  of  its  contents,  that  I  would  make  no 
objection  for  myself,  if  I  could  have  leave  to  reply  if 
anything  needing  reply  should  appear.  I  gave  no  con 
sent.  I  had  no  knowledge  of  what  the  letter  was,  nor 
was  I  in  any  respect  in  privity  with  the  outrage  and 
indecency  of  its  being  read.  I  simply  refrained  from 
objecting  as  I  was,  as  I  supposed,  in  some  way  referred 
to,  and  did  not  therefore  choose  to  interpose  objection 
if  others  did  not. 

Mr.  Pike.  When  the  Speaker  asked  if  anyone 
objected  to  the  introduction  of  the  letter—  and  he  put 
it  twice  clearly  to  the  House — the  gentleman  from 
New  York  rose  in  his  place  and  said  he  should  not 
object. 

Mr.  Conlding.  I  simply  refrained  from  objecting; 
I  did  not  assent. 

Mr.  Pike.  If  the  gentleman  makes  a  distinction 
between  assenting  and  not  objecting,  he  is  entitled  to 
the  benefit  of  the  distinction.  I  desire  merely  simply 
to  state  the  position  of  my  colleague  in  introducing 
the  letter. 

Mr.  Wentworth.  Mr.  Speaker,  what  I  want  to 
say  is  this  :  the  chairman  of  the  committee  alluded  to 
plantation  manners.  Now  plantation  manners  are  not 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  309 

generally  located  in  the  North.  At  least  it  is  not  so 
generally  understood.  General  Fry  is  a  native  of  my 
state,  and  the  gentleman  who  brought  his  letter  be 
fore  the  House  knew  what  it  contained ;  he  knew  it 
contained  an  attack  upon  one  of  his  fellow  members, 
and  one  of  his  coequals  in  the  House ;  and  in  sending 
it  to  the  Clerk's  desk  to  be  read  he  did  it  for  the  ex 
press  purpose  of  responding  to  the  gentleman  from 
New  York.  And  now  my  friend  calls  this  plantation 
manners.  Why,  sir,  these  manners  are  up  in  the  boreal 
regions — the  northern  part  of  Maine  arid  the  northern 
part  of  Illinois.  General  Fry  was  one  of  the  first 
graduates  of  West  Point  from  my  Congressional  Dis 
trict.  I  take  an  interest  in  his  character,  and  my 
whole  State  has  an  interest  in  it,  not  only  personally, 
but  on  account  of  the  services  of  his  family.  His 
father,  when  the  war  broke  out,  differing  politically 
from  the  Administration,  raised  a  regiment,  and  though 
he  was  between  sixty  and  seventy  years  of  age  he  went 
into  the  field  and  fought  in  some  of  the  severest  battles 
that  took  place  during  the  war.  His  friends  are 
numerous  in  our  State,  and  as  one  of  the  Represen 
tatives  of  the  State  I  would  not  feel  justified  in  allow 
ing  this  thing  to  be  done,  which  it  seems  to  be  the  in 
tention  of  the  House  to  do,  without  saying  this  much. 
And  yet  I  feel  that  I  am  under  no  obligation  to  defend 
General  Fry,  although  he  was  my  own  cadet,  because 
he  should  have  shown  me  that  letter.  I  understand 
that  he  exhibited  the  letter  to  no  member  of  the 
Illinois  delegation.  There  is  not  a  member  from 
Illinois  who  would  not  have  advised  him  to  have  kept 
it  to  himself. 


310  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FKY    CONTROVERSY. 

But,  Mr.  Speaker,  to  revert  to  the  original  point, 
it  does  not  screen  a  man  when  he  wants  to  attack  some 
fellow-member  of  the  House  to  go  to  the  Department, 
get  a  letter  and  send  it  to  the  Clerk's  desk  to  be  read. 
And  here  this  report  is  brought  in  censuring  him. 
As  for  the  gentleman  from  New  York  [Mr.  Conkling\ 
I  am  free  to  say,  as  I  presume  every  member  of  the 
House  is,  that  there  is  nothing  in  his  conduct  that  is 
not  entirely  to  his  credit,  and  he  has  won  laurels  by 
the  investigation. 

The  Speaker.     The  gentleman's  five  minutes  have 
expired. 

Mr.  Sliellabarger.  I  am  willing  to  give  the  gen 
tleman  five  minutes  more. 

Mr.  Wentwortli.  Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  we  are  pass 
ing  by  this  subject,  we  are  passing  by  the  gentleman 
who  introduced  this  letter  to  censure  him.  Does  any 
one  suppose  that  the  gentleman  from  Maine  when  he 
introduced  it  did  not  know  for  what  purpose  it  was 
written  ?  What  testimony  is  before  the  committee 
that  General  Fry  himself  knew  it  was  to  come  here  ? 
But  so  far  as  he  is  concerned  that  does  not  affect  the 
odium  attached  to  him  for  sending  it  here,  or  to  others 
who  gave  it  to  the  gentleman  from  Maine.  But  the 
point  I  object  to  is,  that  the  gentleman  from  New 
York  should  bring  down  upon  the  head  of  this  officer 
whose  character  has  stood  up  to  this  time  without  re 
proach,  one  of  the  most  gallant  men  we  ever  had  in  the 
Army,  whose  integrity  and  honor  have  always  been 
sustained  until  this  committee  made  this  report ;  and 
now  the  whole  of  the  odium  of  sending  a  letter  here  is 
to  be  attributed  to  him,  when  I  think  it  belongs  some 
where  else. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


311 


I  have  several  times  during  this  session  felt  it  to 
be  my  duty  to  call  gentlemen  to  order  for  impugning 
the  motives  of  other  members.  I  always  differed  in 
this  respect  with  the  Chair.  It  would  make  an  easy 
berth  for  the  Speaker,  according  to  his  decision,  that  a 
member  who  had  consent  to  make  a  personal  explana 
tion  could  go  on  and  say  what  he  pleased,  and  we 
would  have  to  sit  here  and  watch  him.  I  am  satisfied, 
since  the  Speaker  delivered  his  recent  opinion,  that  he 
is  right  in  a  parliamentary  point  of  view.  Hereafter, 
if  anybody  on  this  floor  undertakes  to  make  a  personal 
attack  on  another,  I  shall  feel  bound  to  call  him  to 
order  at  once.  Had  we  done  this  when  the  gentleman 
from  Maine  imputed  bad  motives  to  the  gentleman 
from  New  York,  we  would  have  saved  ourselves  in 
the  House  all  this  trouble  and  mortification.  When 
such  a  contest  has  once  begun,  it  is  the  bounden  duty 
of  some  one  member  to  rise  upon  the  floor  and  demand 
that  it  shall  be  stopped. 

I  hope,  Mr.  Speaker,  that  some  one  will  feel  it  to 
be  his  duty,  if  he  knows  anything  against  General  Fry, 
to  prefer  the  charges  and  let  him  be  tried  by  the 
proper  tribunal.  If  he  sent  that  letter  here,  if  he  de 
signed  it  to  be  sent  here  against  a  member  of  this 
House,  I  am  willing  to  go  as  far  as  any  other  member 
of  the  House,  to  fix  the  proper  censure  upon  him. 
Should  it  appear,  however,  that  he  did  not  intend  to 
have  that  letter  presented  to  the  House,  then,  so  far 
as  the  prerogatives  of  the  House  are  concerned,  it 
alters  the  case  very  materially.  I  agree  with  the  gen 
tleman  from  Pennsylvania  [Mr.  Stevens],  if  there  be 
anything  against  General  Fry,  let  charges  be  filed 


312  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

against  him,  and  let  him  be  tried  by  a  military  tribunal. 
He  is  out  of  the  House  ;  there  is  no  one  here  to  advo 
cate  his  cause.  No  one  knows  what  he  has  to  say. 
We  have  no  explanation  why  he  sent  that  letter  here. 
As  he  did  not  send  the  letter  here,  I  am  willing,  to  that 
extent,  to  agree  to  the  report  of  the  committee.  But 
then  there  is  the  member  who  had  the  letter  read  from 
the  Clerk's  desk.  When  he  sent  it  up  to  be  read  he 
virtually  indorsed  it.  What  are  we  to  do  with  him  ? 

Mr.  Shellaba/rger.    I  demand  the  previous  question. 

Mr.  Pike.  I  want  to  say  a  word  in  behalf  of  my 
colleague. 

Mr.  Shellabarger.  I  will  yield  out  of  my  time 
after  the  previous  question  has  been  seconded. 

The  previous  question  was  seconded  and  the  main 
question  ordered. 

The  Speaker  stated  that  the  gentleman  from  Ohio 
[Mr.  Shellabarger]  was  entitled  to  an  hour  in  which  to 
close  the  debate. 

Mr.  Shellabarger.  I  yield  five  minutes  to  the 
gentleman  from  Maine. 

Mr.  Pike.  Mr.  Speaker,  the  gentleman  from  Il 
linois  makes  a  valiant  defense — I  suppose  he  means  it 
to  be  such — of  his  protegJ,  General  Fry,  by  attempting 
to  shift  the  whole  responsibility  upon  my  colleague. 

Mr.  Wentworth.  I  do  not  make  any  defense  of 
General  Fry. 

Mr.  Pike.  The  gentleman  insinuates  that  my 
colleague  by  some  wily  art  induced  General  Fry  to 
send  that  letter  to  be  read  in  this  House. 

Mr.  Wentworth.  I  beg  the  gentleman's  pardon. 
I  did  not  say  so. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVEESY.  313 

Mr.  Pike.  Is  the  gentleman  authorized  by  Gen 
eral  Fry  or  any  one  else  to  say  that  my  colleague  in 
duced  him  to  send  this  letter  to  this  House  ? 

Mr.  Wentworth.  I  do  not  charge  the  gentleman's 
colleague  with  having  done  so. 

Mr.  Pike.  I  am  glad  that  the  gentleman  with 
draws  the  charge. 

Mr.  Wentworth.  I  do  not  charge  any  colleague 
of  mine  in  this  House  with  anything. 

Mr.  Pike.  I  understood  the  gentleman  to  say 
that  my  colleague  induced  General  Fry  to  send  this 
letter  here. 

Mr.  Wentworth.  I  said  I  did  not  know  what  in 
ducements  were  brought  to  bear  upon  General  Fry  to 
have  him  send  this  letter  here. 

Mr.  Pike.  I  can  say  to  the  gentleman,  if  he  does 
not  know,  and  I  speak  from  a  general  knowledge  of 
my  colleague's  character  and  not  from  having  had  any 
communication  with  him  on  the  subject — I  can  tell 
him  that  if  he  investigates  the  subject  and  learns  the 
truth,  he  will  find  that  his  insinuations  against  my  col 
league  have  no  foundation.  He  generously  defended 
General  Fry,  as  he  would  any  friend  he  deemed  un 
justly  assailed,  and  General  Fry  furnished  him  this 
letter  expressly  to  be  read  in  this  House  as  corroborat 
ing  his  statements  in  his  behalf. 

Mr.  Wentworth.     Have  you  seen  General  Fry  ? 

Mr.  Pike.  I  have  not.  I  have  had  no  commun 
ication  with  him.  I  do  not  propose  to  defend  him. 
I  only  speak  of  the  part  my  colleague  had  in  this 
transaction.  As  to  the  breach  of  privilege  which  is 
spoken  of  by  some  gentlemen,  the  House  knows  of 


314  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

the  debate  that  occurred.  My  colleague  had  his  say  ; 
the  gentleman  from  New  York  had  his  say;  which  got 
the  better  of  it  the  record  will  show. 

The  gentleman  from  Illinois  said  my  colleague 
rose  for  a  personal  explanation  and  then  introduced 
the  letter,  acting  under  pretense  of  his  privileges.  I 
corrected  him ;  and  now  I  have  the  Globe,  which  will 
show  who  was  right,  and  it  will  show,  too,  that  my 
colleague  is  not  subject  to  the  implied  censure  of  the 
committee,  if  they  mean  it  as  a  censure,  when  in  their 
report  they  condemn  the  practice  of  members  coming 
in  here,  under  the  color  of  personal  explanations,  and 
bringing  in  letters  from  other  persons. 

Now  let  me  read  from  the  Globe  containing  the 
report  of  the  proceedings  and  debates  of  the  House  of 
the  30th  of  April : 

Mr.  Elaine.  Will  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  Eliot} 
yield  to  me  a  moment? 

Mr.  Eliot.     Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  Blaine.  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  letter  from  Provost  Marshal  Gen 
eral  Fry,  which  I  ask  to  have  read  at  the  Clerk's  desk  for  the  double 
purpose  of  vindicating  myself  from  the  charge  of  having  stated  in  de 
bate  last  week  what  was  false,  and  also  for  the  purpose,  which  I  am 
sure  will  commend  itself  to  the  House,  of  allowing  fair  play  to  an  hon 
orable  man  in  the  same  forum  in  which  he  has  been  assailed. 

The  Speaker.  It  requires  unanimous  consent  to  have  it  read.  Is 
there  objection? 

Mr.  Conlding.  I  infer  that  this  has  some  reference  to  me.  I  shall 
make  no  objection,  provided  I  may  have  an  opportunity  to  reply  to 
whatever  the  letter  may  call  for  hereafter. 

Mr.  Stevens.  I  hope  this  will  be  postponed  until  after  we  get 
through  this  bill.  I  object  to  interrupting  in  this  way. 

It  was  not  read  then.  About  an  hour  later  in  the 
proceedings  I  find  this  : 

Mr.  Blaine.  I  ask  to  send  to  the  Clerk's  table  to  have  read  the 
letter  the  reading  of  which  was  objected  to  this  morning. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY  CONTROVERSY.  315 

Mr.  Corikliny.  I  do  not  object,  but  only  ask,  if  the  matter  relates 
to  me,  to  have  an  opportunity  to  reply. 

Mr.  Blame.    I  wish  to  repeat  what  I  said  before, 

Mr.  Ross.  I  object  to  the  gentleman  from  New  York  making  a 
speech. 

Mr.  Conkling.  The  gentleman  does  not  want  a  matter  to  be  read 
relating  to  a  member  and  then  not  permit  that  member  to  reply, 

Mr.  Ross*     I  withdraw  my  objection. 

Mr.  Elaine.  I  want  this  letter  read  for  the  double  purpose  of  vin 
dicating  myself  from  the  charge  of  having  made  an  untruthful  state 
ment  on  this  floor,  and  to  give,  in  the  broad  American  sense,  fair  play 
and  opportunity  to  a  worthy  officer  to  be  heard  in  a  forum  where  he 
has  been  assailed. 

I  wish  further  to  say  that  if,  on  investigation,  I  had  found  I  was  in 
error  in  the  statement  I  had  made  touching  the  member  from  the  Utica 
district  of  New  York  [Mr.  Conkling'}  and  Provost  Marshal  General  Fry,  I 
would,  mortifying  as  it  would  have  been,  have  apologized  to  the  House, 
Whether  I  was  in  error  or  not  I  leave  to  those  who  hear  the  letter  of 
the  Provost  Marshal  General. 

And  thereupon  the  letter  was  read.  The  House 
can  judge  whether  there  was  any  invasion  of  dignity 
when  all  the  members  consented  to  have  the  letter 
read  to  them.  Certainly  my  colleague  did  nothing 
but  what  was  fair  and  manly.  The  House  cannot 
now  complain  if  they  failed  to  object  to  the  reading 
of  what  they  desired  to  hear. 

Mr.  Hotclikiss.  Mr.  Speaker,  should  the  resolu 
tion  which  my  colleague  from  the  Onondaga  district 
gave  notice  of  a  few  minutes  ago  be  adopted,  we 
should  ascertain  who  was  the  right  man  to  be  prose 
cuted  in  this  case.  It  has  been  suggested  by  the 
gentleman  from  Illinois  [Mr.  WentwortJi\  that  we  are 
pursuing  the  wrong  man ;  that  General  Fry,  when 
that  letter  was  sent  to  Mr.  Elaine,  might  not  have 
known  that  it  was  to  be  used  in  this  House.  Now,  I 
do  not  wish  to  spend  a  moment's  time  over  that ;  I 


316  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Plouse  to  another 
subject. 

Mr.  Pike.  Does  the  gentleman  from  New  York 
[Mr.  JHotchMss]  believe  that  was  the  fact  ? 

Mr.  Hotclikiss.     That  what  was  the  fact  ? 

Mr.  Pike.  That  when  General  Fry  sent  that 
letter  to  my  colleague  [Mr.  Blaine\  he,  General  Fry, 
did  not  expect  it  to  be  read  in  this  House. 

Mr.  Hotclikiss.  I  have  expressed  no  opinion 
upon  the  subject,  and  therefore  I  am  not  to  be  cross- 
examined  upon  the  subject.  But  I  would  call  the 
attention  of  the  House  to  libel  No.  2,  which  has 
been  sent  stealthily  into  this  House  and  scattered 
around  here  upon  the  desks  of  members.  It  has  been 
kept  away  from  my  desk.  It  has  been  stolen  in  here, 
with  this  notice  served  upon  the  House : 

' '  A  request  made  by  General  Fry  to  the  investigating  committee 
for  the  privilege  of  preparing  and  submitting,  by  himself  or  counsel,  a 
written  plea  was  not  granted. ' ' 

Here  is  an  appeal  to  the  House  against  the  con 
duct  of  one  of  its  committees : 

' '  The  following  letter  of  instructions  was,  however,  addressed  by 
General  Fry  to  his  counsel,  Hon.  A.  G.  Riddle,  on  the  eve  of  the  oral 
plea,  which  Mr.  Eiddle  made  in  compliance  with  the  requirements  of 
the  committee.  It  gives  a  general  but  brief  resume  of  the  grounds  on 
which  General  Fry  rests  his  charges  against  Mr.  Conkling,  and  his  de 
fense  against  the  charge  which  Mr.  Conkling  incidentally  brings  against 
him." 

There  the  attention  of  this  House  is  called  to  this 
question,  on  an  appeal  from  the  action  of  their  com 
mittee.  He  says  that  they  did  not  treat  him  fairly, 
and  he  now  appeals  to  the  House  and  calls  their  atten 
tion  to  this  letter,  and  asks  them  to  review  the  matter. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  817 

Now,  who  has  done  that?  I  would  like  to  know  who 
is  the  right  man  for  that,  and  whether  this  body  has 
any  dignity  to  protect.  We  have  been  lectured  here 
this  session  from  all  quarters,  until  finally  clerks  in 
the  Departments  come  here  and  read  lectures  to  us,  or 
use  members  of  this  House  for  that  purpose.  Next 
come  in  bullies  and  attack  us,  and  attack  the  officers 
of  this  House.  When  will  the  dogs  be  set  upon  us  ? 
Such  a  libel  as  this  is  scattered  about  this  House,  and 
the  attention  of  the  House  is  called  to  it ;  and  then 
General  Fry  says : 

' 4 1  have  thus  briefly  reviewed  the  charges  contained  in  my  letter. 
Of  the  principal  charges,  I  maintain  and  reassert  not  only  the  substan 
tial  but  the  literal  correctness." 

A  more  impudent,  a  more  detestable  libel,  never 
was  presented  to  the  House.  It  is  in  defiance  of  the 
committee  and  in  defiance  of  the  judgment  of  the 
House.  It  says  in  substance,  "I  will  insult  you,  no 
matter  what  you  do,  no  matter  what  the  report  of 
your  committee  may  be." 

The  Speaker.  The  five  minutes  of  the  gentleman 
have  expired. 

Mr.  Sliellabarger.  I  yield  to  the  gentleman  five 
minutes  more. 

Mr.  Hotclikiss.  I  desire  to  say  only  a  few  words 
more. 

Mr.  Speaker,  if  this  matter  should  be  referred  to 
the  Judiciary  Committee  as  a  matter  of  law,  the  special 
committee  having  found  all  the  facts,  and  this  last 
libel  being  before  us,  that  committee  will  be  enabled 
to  ascertain  who  the  "  right  man  "  is ;  and  by  and  by 
we  shall  be  able  to  find  some  one  whom  we  may  be 


318 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


able  to  bring  into  this  House,  that  the  Speaker  may 
talk  to  him  and  persuade  him,  perhaps,  that  he  really 
has  been  in  the  wrong  in  trampling  upon  the  dignity 
of  the  American  Congress,  by  insulting  us,  by  treating 
us  as  no  man  would  dare  to  treat  a  common  pettifogger 
in  a  decent  justice's  court.  By  and  by  we  shall  rise, 
perhaps,  to  sufficient  dignity  to  resent  an  insult. 

Mr.  Speaker,  it  has  been  suggested  here  by  an 
honorable  member  that  if  a  bureau  of  this  Govern 
ment — a  bureau  reeking  with  corruption,  a  stench  in 
the  nostrils  of  the  people — comes  in  here  and  asks  for 
a  continuance  of  public  confidence  and  public  favor, 
that  it  be  incorporated  in  a  new  law,  perhaps  ingrafted 
upon  the  Constitution  by  way  of  amendment,  no 
member  here  has  a  right  to  rise  and  say  anything 
about  the  man  who  administers  that  bureau.  No 
matter  how  corrupt  his  conduct  may  have  been,  our 
mouths  must  be  closed,  or  else  when  we  approach  the 
door  of  this  Hall  ruffians  may  pounce  upon  us ;  or  we 
may  be  libelled  by  newspaper  correspondents ;  it  may 
be  heralded  all  over  the  country  that  this  or  that 
member  has  violated  the  Constitution  and  the  law, 
and  has  disgraced  himself. 

The  hirelings  of  the  press  throughout  the  country 
have  been  busy  libelling  my  colleague  ever  since  this 
infamous  slander  was  read  here,  the  attacks  emanating 
from  this  city,  the  press  being  shamelessly  prostituted 
for  the  purpose  of  traducing  him.  I  have  told  him  to 
wait  in  silence  till  the  day  of  reckoning  should  come. 
Now  I  want  to  have  the  verdict  of  this  House  pro 
claimed  throughout  the  Union. 

There  is  one  more  point  to  which  I  wish  to  call 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  319 

attention.  This  investigation  has  been  conducted  by 
a  committee  who  have  become  acquainted  with  the 
question.  I  hope  the  subject  may  not  be  taken  out 
of  their  hands  and  referred  to  the  Executive  for  his 
action.  The  Executive  should  hear  the  whole  story 
when  it  is  told.  We  have  scarcely  begun  this  matter. 
General  Fry  has  not  been  tried.  We  tried  Mr.  Conk- 
ling.  We  have,  so  far  as  we  have  been  permitted, 
shown  General  Fry's  motive  in  writing  this  libel,  but 
have  gone  no  further.  This  committee  should  be 
continued  to  investigate  the  whole  case.  They  should 
go  on  "  in  this  line  if  it  takes  all  summer." 

Mr.  Speaker,  I  had  no  idea  of  saying  a  word  on 
this  subject ;  but  when  it  is  suggested  that  a  Repre 
sentative  on  this  floor  has  no  right  to  speak  his  mind 
independently  on  questions  of  public  interest,  matters 
of  legislation,  I  desire  to  know  whether  that  is  the 
rule  or  not.  If  he  is  to  be  tongue-tied  here  I  would 
rather  not  hold  a  position  in  this  House. 

Mr.  Shellabarger.  Mr.  Speaker,  I  now  ask  that 
the  vote  be  taken. 

Mr.  Randall,  of  Pennsylvania.  Will  the  gentle 
man  from  Ohio  allow  me  to  ask  him  a  question  ? 

Mr.  Shellabarger.     Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  jRandall,  of  Pennsylvania.  Preliminary  to 
the  question,  I  desire  to  say  a  word  or  two.  I  have 
not  had  time  to  read  this  report,  nor  do  I  wish  in  any 
manner  to  enter  into  the  personal  matters  to  which  it 
relates ;  but  I  want  to  know  of  the  chairman  whether 
this  committee  in  their  report  justify  the  taking  of 
employment  by  a  member  of  Congress  who  is  in 
receipt  of  his  salary  as  a  member  of  Congress,  and 


320  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

taking  payment  for  such  employment  in  addition  to 
his  emoluments  as  a  member  of  Congress.  I  want  to 
know  whether  the  committee,  irrespective  of  the 
parties  involved  in  this  case,  justify  that  or  not. 

Mr.  Sliellabarger.  The  committee  find  in  their 
report  that  a  member  of  Congress  who  is  qualified  as 
such  shall  not  hold  any  other  office  or  receive  any 
compensation  therefor.  They  find  that  a  member  of 
Congress,  after  the  4th  of  March,  the  day  on  which 
his  pay  commences  under  the  law,  cannot  receive  the 
salary  of  any  other  office  during  that  time.  A  mem 
ber  of  Congress  may  be  employed  by  the  Government 
as  counsel,  and  such  employment  may  be  competently 
performed ;  and  that  is  what  occurred  in  this  case. 

Mr.  .Randall,  of  Pennsylvania.  Then  I  under 
stand  the  gentleman  to  say  he  believes  a  member  of 
Congress,  subsequent  to  the  4th  of  March  and  prior 
to  the  expiration  of  his  term,  can  be  employed  by  the 
Government  in  another  capacity  and  receive  compen 
sation  therefor. 

Mr.  Shellabarger.  That  is  what  the  committee 
find  on  the  subject,  if  the  employment  is  not  an  office. 

Mr.  Randall,  of  Pennsylvania.  Can  he  be  em 
ployed  against  the  Government  ? 

Mr.  Shellabarger.  In  favor  of  the  Government 
he  may  be  employed ;  against  the  Government  he  can 
not  be  employed,  because  there  is  a  statute  of  1864 
which  expressly  provides  in  this  identical  case  of  Mr. 
Conkling,  that  is  to  say,  it  provides  no  member  of 
Congress  shall  be  permitted  to  be  employed  by  any 
person  in  any  proceeding  before  a  court-martial,  fur 
nishing  a  complete  legislative  determination  that  he 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  321 

may  be  employed  in  that  identical  case  on  the  other 
side,  because  the  provision  of  1864,  in  saying  that  a 
member  of  Congress  may  not  be  employed  by  any 
other  person,  would  imply  that  he  may  be  employed 
in  that:  identical  case  by  the  Government  itself. 

Mr.  Randall,  of  Pennsylvania.  That  is  a  fine 
distinction— a  distinction  without  a  difference.  If  it 
be  not  a  violation  of  the  letter  of  the  law,  it  is  to  my 
mind  a  violation  of  its  spirit. 

Mr.  Stevens.  Suppose  a  man  had  an  action  of 
ejectment  against  the  Government  in  Philadelphia, 
and  came  to  my  colleague  to  employ  him,  would  he 
think  himself  barred  ? 

Mr.  Randall,  of  Pennsylvania.  I  am  not  a  mem 
ber  of  the  bar  and  therefore  I  should  not  be  barred. 
[Laughter.]  I  will  answer  my  colleague  that  I  do 
not  think  it  would  be  proper  for  me  while  receiving 
pay  as  a  member  of  Congress  to  be  employed  against 
the  Government  I  was  sent  here  to  represent. 

Mr.  Stevens.  Last  September  parties  came  to  me 
to  represent  them  in  a  suit  in  reference  to  the  internal 
revenue.  They  made  it  worth  my  while ;  that  is,  I 
suppose,  paying  my  expenses.  [Laughter.]  I  did  so 
and  defeated  the  Government,  by  which  it  is  com 
pelled  to  refund  some  six  or  seven  thousand  dollars. 
I  owe  an  apology  to  the  country  for  having  done  jus 
tice  to  these  parties. 

Mr.  Randall,  of  Pennsylvania.  That  is  a  matter 
about  which  I  have  no  concern. 

Mr.  Sliellabarger  demanded  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered. 

The  question  was  taken;  and  it  was  decided  in 


322 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


the  affirmative — yeas  96,  nays  4,  not  voting  82 ;  as 
follows : 

Yeas — Messrs.  Alley,  Allison,  Ames,  Anderson, 
Delos  R  Ashley,  Banks,  Baxter,  Bidwell,  Bingham, 
Boutwel],  Boyer,  Broomall,  Buckland,  Bundy,  Reader 
W.  Clarke,  Sidney  Clarke,  Cobb,  Davis,  Dawson, 
Defrees,  Delano,  Deming,  Donnelly,  Eckley,  Eggles- 
ton,  Eliot,  Ferry,  Garfield,  Hale,  Abner  C.  Harding, 
Hart,  Higby,  Holmes,  Hooper,  Hotchkiss,  Chester  D. 
Hubbard,  John  H.  Hubbard,  James  R.  Hubbell,  Hul- 
burd,  Humphrey,  Jenckes,  Julian,  Kasson,  Kelley, 
Ketcham,  Koontz,  Laflin,  George  V.  Lawrence,  Wil 
liam  Lawrence,  Loan,  Longyear,  Marston,  McClurg, 
McKee,  McRuer,  Mercur,  Miller,  Moorhead,  Morrill, 
Morris,  Myers,  Newell,  O'Neill,  Orth,  Paine,  Perham, 
Pike,  Plants,  Price,  Radford,  William  H.  Randall, 
Raymond,  Alexander  H.  Rice,  John  H.  Rice,  Rollins, 
Sawyer,  Shellabarger,  Stevens,  Strouse,  Taber,  Taylor, 
John  L.  Thomas,  Van  Aernam,  Burt  Van  Horn, 
Robert  T.  Van  Horn,  Ward,  Warner,  Henry  D.  Wash- 
burn,  William  B.  Washburn,  Welker,  Williams,  James 
F.  Wilson,  Stephen  F.  Wilson,  Windom,  and  Wood- 
bridge— 96. 

Nays — Messrs.  Bromwell,  Ross,  Thornton,  and 
Wentworth — 4. 

Not  voting — Messrs.  Ancona,  James  M.  Ashley, 
Baker,  Baldwin,  Barker,  Beamen,  Benjamin,  Bergen, 
Blaine,  Blow,  Brandegee,  Chanler,  Conkling,  Cook, 
Cullom,  Culver,  Darling,  Dawes,  Denison,  Dixon, 
Dodge,  Driggs,  Dumont,  Eldridge,  Farnsworth, 
Farquhar,  Finck,  Glossbrenner,  Goodyear,  Grider, 
Grinnell,  Griswold,  Aaron  Harding,  Harris,  Hayes, 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY   CONTROVERSY.  323 

Henderson,  Hill,  Hogan,  Asahel  B.  Hubbard,  Demas 
Hubbard,  Edwin  N.  Hubbell,  Ingersoll,  Johnson, 
Jones,  Kelso,  Kerr,  Kuykendall,  Latham,  Le  Blond, 
Lynch,  Marshal],  Marvin,  McCullough,  Mclndoe, 
Moulten,  Niblack,  Nicholson,  Noell,  Patterson,  Phelps, 
Pomeroy,  Samuel  J.  Randall,  Ritter,  Rogers,  Rousseau, 
Schenck,  Scofield,  Shanklin,  Sitgreaves,  Sloan,  Smith, 
Spalding,  Starr,  Stilwell,  Thayer,  Francis  Thomas, 
Trimble,  Upson,  Elihu  B.  Washburne,  Whaley,  Win- 
field,  and  Wright— 82. 

So  the  resolution  was  adopted. 
During  the  roll  call, 

Mr.  Wentworth  said :  While  I  concur  in  so  much 
of  the  report  as  relates  to  the  gentleman  from  New 
York,  in  other  respects  I  cannot  concur  in  it  for  the 
reasons  I  have  stated,  and  I  therefore  vote  "no." 

The  vote  having  been  announced  as  above 
recorded, 

Mr.  Sliellabarger  moved  to  reconsider  the  vote  by 
which  the  resolution  was  passed,  and  also  moved  to 
lay  the  motion  to  reconsider  upon  the  table. 
The  latter  motion  was  agreed  to. 
Mr.  Davis.     I  rise  to  a  question  of  privilege.     I 
offer  the  following  resolution  and  demand  the  previous 
question  upon  it : 

Whereas  on  the  30th  of  April  a  letter  purporting 
to  be  written  by  General  Fry  was  read  in  the  House, 
together  with  sundry  documents  accompanying  it, 
which  letter  was  grossly  libellous  and  reflected  upon 
the  public  and  private  character  of  a  member;  and 
whereas  the  House  having  ordered  an  inquiry  as  to 
said  letter  and  its  truth  or  falsity;  and  whereas  for 


324  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

that  purpose  a  select  committee  was  raised,  which 
committee  has  ascertained  and  reported  said  letter  to 
have  been  false  and  malicious :  Therefore, 

Resolved,  That  the  Judiciary  Committee  be 
instructed  to  inquire  and  report  whether  any  breach 
of  the  privileges  of  the  House  not  sufficiently  reported 
upon  by  said  select  committee  has  been  committed  in 
connection  with  writing  or  sending  said  letter,  the  doc 
uments  accompanying  the  same,  or  the  introduction 
thereof  into  the  House,  or  causing  the  same  to  be  read 
in  the  House,  or  entered  upon  the  record  of  the  House, 
or  making  the  same  public,  and  if  so,  by  whom,  and 
what  action,  if  any,  should  be  taken ;  and  that  said 
committee  also  inquire  and  report  whether  said  libel 
has  been  republished  or  renewed  by  the  said  General 
Fry  or  any  other  person  since  the  termination  of  the 
session  of  said  committee,  and  if  so,  by  whom,  and 
whether  any  and  what  action  ought  to  be  had  thereon ; 
and  that  said  committee  have  power  to  send  for  per 
sons  and  papers. 

The  Speaker.  The  gentleman  claims  this  to  be 
a  question  of  privilege.  The  Chair  will  submit  to  the 
House  whether  it  is  a  question  of  privilege. 

Mr.  Wilson,  of  Iowa.  I  suggest  that  the  gentle 
man  modify  it  so  far  as  to  refer  the  subject  to  the 
same  committee  that  has  had  this  matter  under  con 
sideration  heretofore.  I  see  no  necessity  for  taking  it 
out  of  the  jurisdiction  of  that  committee  and  referring 
it  to  another.  I  am  satisfied  that  the  House  has  entire 
confidence  in  the  ability  and  integrity  of  that  com 
mittee. 

Mr.  Eldridge.     Is  this  debatable  ? 


CONKLING   AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  325 

The  Speaker.  The  Chair  thinks  it  is  scarcely 
debatable.  It  is  a  question  which  must  be  decided  by 
the  House  exactly  as  the  Chair  decides  a  question  of 
privilege,  upon  the  presentation  of  the  resolution  itself 

Mr.  Davis.  I  desire  to  say  that  I  have  no  objec 
tion  to  this  going  to  the  special  committee,  though  I 
preferred  it  should  go  to  the  Judiciary  Committee.  I 
am  entirely  willing  to  modify  it. 

Mr.  Eldridge.     I  withdraw  my  objection. 

Mr.  Pike.  My  colleague,  I  know,  would  not 
object  to  the  fullest  investigation. 

Mr.  Shellabarg&r.  I  did  not  hear  the  resolution 
read,  but  I  understand  it  to  relate  to  the  question 
whether  in  the  conduct  of  the  gentleman  from  Maine 
there  was  anything  that  constituted  a  breach  of  the 
rules  or  privileges  of  the  House.  Now,  that  is  a  ques 
tion  for  the  Committee  on  Rules,  and  I  beg  that  the 
resolution  may  take  that  direction,  for  no  member  of 
the  select  committee,  that  I  am  aware  of,  professes  to 
be  familiar  with  the  rules  of  this  body. 

Mr.  Davis.  I  desire  not  to  reflect  upon  the  char 
acter  of  any  member  whatever.  I  have  not  introduced 
the  resolution  from  any  personal  feeling  toward  any 
member  of  the  House.  But  I  desire  to  know  what 
constitutes  a  breach  of  the  privileges  of  the  House. 

Mr.  Radford.     I  object  to  further  debate. 

Mr.  Davis.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  a  state 
ment  to  be  made  ? 

Mr.  Radford.     No,  sir. 

The  Speaker.  The  only  subject  to  be  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Rules  is  a  proposition  to  amend  the 
rules. 


326  CONKLING   AND    BLAINE-FBY    CONTROVERSY. 

Mr.  Davis.  Then  I  will  insist  upon  the  previous 
motion  to  refer  it  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary. 

The  Speaker.  The  Chair  will  submit  to  the 
House  whether  this  is  a  question  of  privilege. 

The  question  being  taken,  it  was  decided  in  the 
negative — ayes  24,  noes  71. 


APPENDIX  E. 

I  expect  to  show  that  Captain  Grandall,  when 
he  was  suspended  from  duty  as  Provost  Marshal  of 
the  Twenty-first  District,  held  in  his  hands  money  and 
bonds  which  belonged  to  the  United  States,  and  which 
he  had  refused  at  least  three  times  to  turn  over,  on 
competent  orders  from  superior  authority,  to  wit : 
Major  Haddock  and  General  James  B.  Fry,  Provost 
Marshal  General  of  the  United  States. 

I  expect  to  show  that  he  was  ordered  to  turn  it 
over  to  a  special  officer  of  Major  Haddock's,  and  that 
he  refused ;  that  he  was  ordered  to  turn  it  over  to  a 
disbursing  officer  of  the  United  States  who  had  no 
connection  with  Major  Haddock,  but  who  kept  his 
accounts  with  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States, 
whose  business  it  was  to  receive  the  money ;  and  that 
he  refused  to  turn  it  over. 

I  expect  to  show  that  he  was  directed  by  Major 
Haddock  to  turn  it  over  to  his  successor  in  office,  who 
relieved  him  of  the  duties  of  Provost  Marshal  of  that 
district,  and  who  was  directed  to  receive  and  receipt 
for  these  moneys,  which  had  come  to  Captain  Gran- 
daWs  hands  as  Provost  Marshal ;  that  he  was  going 
out  of  office  as  Provost  Marshal,  being  suspended  from 
duty,  and  Major  Beadle  was  about  to  relieve  him ;  and 
that  Captain  Crandall  disobeyed  the  order  and  refused 
to  turn  over  these  moneys  and  bonds  to  his  successor. 

I  expect,  further,  to  show  that  this  was  all 
327 


328 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


known  to  Mr.  ConMing,  and  that  no  prosecution  was 
ever  made  for  the  violation  of  these  orders. 

I  expect  to  show  that  the  county  of  Oneida  was 
paying  a  bounty  of  $700,  perhaps  $725 ;  that  a  large 
number  of  men,  during  the  time  that  the  county  was 
paying  this  bounty,  were  mustered  into  service  with 
$50  bounty ;  and  that  a  large  number  of  these  recruits 
deserted. 

I  expect,  further,  to  prove  that  Captain  Crandall 
stated,  under  oath,  that  prior  to  a  certain  date,  which 
I  cannot  now  remember,  but  during  his  administra 
tion,  and  after  he  had  been  in  office  some  time,  of  all 
the  recruits  who  had  entered  the  service,  none  of  them 
were  citizens  of  Oneida  county ;  that  it  was  his  duty  to 
know  that  the  law  required  that  persons  not  residents 
of  Oneida  county  could  not  be  credited  to  that  county ; 
and  that  these  persons  who,  he  swore,  were  not  resi 
dents  of  Oneida  county,  were  by  him  credited  to 
Oneida  county. 

I  expect  to  show  that  that  came  to  the  knowl 
edge  of  Mr.  Corikling  on  the  trial  of  the  Haddock 
Court  Martial. 

I  expect  to  show  that  there  was  an  order  or 
regulation  in  force  in  that  district  which  required  the 
Provost  Marshal,  during  the  time  Captain  Crandall 
was  in  office,  to  disregard  any  pretended  claim  that  a 
recruit  was  going  for  a  less  sum  than  the  bounty 
offered  by  the  county. 

I  propose  to  show  that  that  order,  then  in  force, 
was  disregarded  by  Captain  Crandall,  and  that  it 
came  to  the  knowledge  of  Mi1.  Conkling,  and  that  no 
prosecution  was  ever  made  for  it. 


CONKLING   AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  329 

I  propose,  farther,  to  show  that,  at  the  time 
the  call  of  the  19th  of  December,  1864,  was  being 
filled,  and  a  fund  was  raised  by  the  Supervisors  of 
Oneida  county,  equivalent  to  $700  for  each  recruit 
who  would  enlist  for  three  years ;  that  the  quota  fixed 
was  calculated  on  a  three  years'  basis;  that  a  resolu 
tion  of  the  Board  of  Supervisors  authorized  each 
Supervisor  to  recruit  for  his  own  town;  that  he  was 
authorized  to  draw  from  the  Treasurer,  or  the  agent 
who  had  control  of  the  fund,  an  amount  of  money 
equal  to  seven  hundred  times  the  quota  of  the  town ; 
and  that  each  Supervisor  was  authorized  to  do  that  as 
a  recruiting  agent ;  that  when  he  had  finished  recruit 
ing,  he  settled  with  the  rest  of  the  Supervisors,  or  they 
settled  among  themselves;  and  if  he  could  produce 
credit  sufficient,  or  certificates  of  some  mustering 
officer — as,  for  instance,  the  Provost  Marshal — show 
ing  recruits  equal  to  the  amount  of  quota  he  was  re 
quired  to  pay  for  (for  illustration — if  the  quota  of  a 
town  was  forty,  and  he  could  produce  to  the  recruit 
ing  agents,  who  happened  to  be  Supervisors,  forty 
certificates  of  credit,  he  having  previously  drawn 
twenty-eight  thousand  dollars),  that  that  would  be 
regarded  as  the  full  settlement  of  that  county. 

I  expect  to  prove,  further,  that  the  class  of  men 
who  were  enlisted  at  that  office  by  Captain  Grandall 
were  a  disgrace  to  the  service;  that  the  office  was 
notorious  as  a  place  at  which  deserters  and  bounty 
jumpers  could  be  passed  and  mustered  into  service; 
that  they  deserted  in  large  numbers,  and  that  men,  in 
addition  to  that,  who  were  physically  disqualified, 
were  passed  by  that  Board ;  that  the  examinations 


330  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

were  not  conducted  in  compliance  with  the  Regula 
tions;  that  the  surgeon  had  his  office  in  one  place  and 
the  Provost  Marshal  in  another,  in  different  rooms, 
and  that  improper  men  were  passed  by  the  Board. 

I  expect  to  prove  that  these  bonds,  which  Cap 
tain  Crandall  refused  to  turn  over  under  the  orders 
to  which  I  have  alluded,  were  afterwards  offered  by 
him  to  the  County  Supervisors ;  that  he  offered  to 
surrender  up  the  bonds  to  the  Supervisors  who  had 
issued  them. 

I  expect  to  prove  that,  about  this  time,  Captain 
Crandall,  in  the  Supreme  Court  of  Oneida  county, 
testified  that  these  bonds  belonged  to  the  United 
States;  that,  in  a  suit  in  which  a  man  named  Richard 
son  was  plaintiff — which  was  an  action,  as  I  under 
stand,  of  replevin,  brought  by  the  plaintiff  Richardson, 
to  recover  possession  of  these  bonds — Captain  Cran 
dall,  in  that  action,  set  up  as  a  defense  to  defeat  the 
plaintiff's  right  of  recovery,  the  fact  that  these  bonds 
were  the  property  of  the  United  States ;  and  that  he 
had,  on  several  occasions,  refused  to  deliver  up  this 
property,  which,  on  that  trial,  he  swore  was  the  prop 
erty  of  the  United  States. 

I  expect  to  show  that  Captain  Crandall  was 
ordered  to  give  up  these  bonds,  and  that  he  refused. 


APPENDIX  F. 

THE    BONDS. 

ID  arriving  at  this  opinion,  there  is  no  doubt  that 
the  Committee  had  some  reasons  which  satisfied  them 
of  the  soundness  thereof. 

It  is  proposed,  for  a  moment,  to  examine  the  argu 
ment  of  the  Committee  on  this  point,  and  discover,  if 
possible,  the  nature  of  these  reasons. 

The  first  fact  which  the  Committee  find  is,  that 
"these  bonds  were  not  local  bounty,  nor  were  they 
deposited  in  behalf  of  recruits,  as  stated  in  General 
Fry's  letter." 

Captain  Crandall,  in  his  official  report,  dated 
March  11,  (which  Judge  Hunt  says  he  advised  and 
suggested,)  states :  "  I  have  in  my  hands,  left  with  me 
by  recruits  in  the  manner  stated,  $11,395,  and  county 
bonds  to  the  amount  of  $20,000." 

Captain  Crandall  having  reported  that  the  bonds 
"  were  left  with  him  by  recruits,"  and  I  having  stated 
in  my  letter  that  the  bonds  "  were  deposited  on  be 
half  of  recruits,"  the  Committee  take  occasion  to  con 
tradict  the  latter,  by  asserting  that  "  these  bonds  were 
not  local  bounty,  nor  were  they  deposited  in  behalf 
of  recruits ";  and  this  contradiction  is  given  by  the 
Committee  when  the  point  is  no  way  material  to  the 
issue  under  investigation.  This  is  only  important,  as 
showing  the  bias  of  the  Committee. 

The  next  statement  is,  that  "on  the  4th  of  March, 
1865,  Major  Haddock  directed  Captain  Crandall  to 

331 


332 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


turn  over  these  bonds  to  S.  Floyd  Hoard,  Special 
Agent.  Captain  Crandall  sought  the  advice  of  dis 
tinguished  and  able  counsel,  and  was  told  he  could 
not  safely  turn  them  over,"  &c. 

Captain  Crandall  was  a  subordinate  military 
officer,  under  the  command  of  Major  Haddock.  He 
received  an  order  in  the  line  of  his  duty.  Instead  of 
obeying  it,  he  advised  with  his  lawyer,  and  disobeyed 
it.  If  the  surmise  of  the  Committee  as  to  Major  Had 
docks  object  in  getting  possession  of  the  funds  be  true, 
and  that  object  had  been  accomplished,  it  would  still 
have  been  better  for  the  government  for  Captain  Cran 
dall  to  have  obeyed  the  order,  because  we  are  told 
that  "  Haddock  was  compelled  to  disgorge,"  while,  as 
it  turns  out,  these  bonds  are  all  lost  to  the  government, 
as  the  Supervisors,  so  far  as  heard  from,  have  not  in 
timated  any  disposition  to  " disgorge." 

The  material  fact  that  Captain  Crandall  was  or 
dered  to  turn  over  these  bonds  to  Captain  Meredith, 
a  United  States  disbursing  officer,  is  entirely  ignored 
by  the  Committee.  As  this  officer  kept  his  account 
with  the  United  States  Treasury,  and  did  not  account 
to  Major  Haddock,  or  place  his  funds  at  the  disposal 
of  that  officer,  there  was  no  ground  for  apprehension 
that'the  transfer  of  the  bonds  to  Captain  Meredith 
could,  in  any  event,  inure  to  the  benefit  of  Major  Had 
dock,  or  loss  to  the  government. 

This  order  was  disobeyed.  Captain  Crandall  was 
ordered  to  turn  the  money  over  to  his  successor, 
Major  Beadle,  which  order,  like  the  others,  he  dis 
obeyed. 

On  the  30th  of  March,  he  was  ordered  by  the 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  333 

Provost  Marshal  General  "to  turn  over  all  moneys, 
bonds  and  other  evidence  of  indebtedness  in  his  pos 
session,  whether  belonging  to  enlisted  men  who  had 
deserted,  or  other  enlisted  men,"  (page  202).  To 
which  he  answered  by  telegraph  as  follows :  "  Your 
communication  received  ;  will  comply  at  once."  And, 
on  the  same  day,  he  turned  over  $2,600  to  Major  Lee, 
and  $5,495  to  Major  Ladd,  (page  203)  which,  with 
other  amounts,  he  held  in  defiance  of  the  three  pre 
ceding  orders  to  turn  them  over,  and  that,  too,  after 
having  been  relieved  from  duty  on  the  13th  of  the 
preceding  month.  On  advising  with  his  counsel,  he 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  $20,000  in  bonds, 
which  he  had  reported  to  me  "he  held  in  his  hands, 
left  with  him  by  recruits"  and  which  he  had  been  three 
times  peremptorily  ordered  to  turn  over,  were  not  em 
braced  in  the  order  above  cited,  and  he  again  refused 
to  turn  them  over.  As  soon  as  I  learned  that  he  had 
turned  over  only  certain  moneys,  and  had  not  turned 
over  the  bonds,  his  attention  was  called  to  the  fact, 
and,  on  the  5th  of  April,  he  was  directed  as  follows 
(page  204) : 

"WAR  DEPARTMENT, 

PROVOST  MARSHAL  GENERAL'S  BUREAU, 

Washington,   D.  C.,  April  5,  1865. 

CAPTAIN:  I  am  directed  by  the  Provost  Marshal  General  to 
acknowledge  receipt  of  your  communication  of  the  1st  instant,  report 
ing  the  transfer,  by  you,  of  $5,495  to  Major  Ladd,  and  $2,600  to  Major 
Lee,  and  to  invite  your  attention  to  the  fact  that,  in  a  tabular  state 
ment  of  moneys,  checks,  bonds  and  vouchers  deposited  with  you,  on 
account  of  local  bounties,  forwarded  by  you  to  this  office,  you  admit 
having  in  your  possession  $33,995,  which  leaves  a  balance  of  $25,900 


334 


CONKL1NG    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


unaccounted  for.     The  Provost  Marshal  General  directs  me  to  inquire 
what  disposition  you  have  made  of  the  balance,  $25,900. 
I  am,  Captain,  very  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 
(Signed)  C.  McKEEVER, 

Assistant  Adjutant  General. 
Captain  P.  B.  Crandall, 
Care  of  Major  Beadle,  Acting  Provost  Marshal,  Utica,  N.Y." 

From  this  it  plainly  appears  that  the  bonds  were 
embraced  in  my  order  of  March  30 ;  and  that  Cap 
tain  Crandall  so  understood  it  appears  from  his  an 
swer  (page  204),  in  which  he  accounts  for  the  bonds, 
and  states  that  they  have  been  seized  by  a  writ  of  re 
plevin  at  the  suit  of  Aaron  Richardson.  Upon  this 
statement  of  the  case,  the  Committee  say : 

' '  These  bonds  belonged  unquestionably  either  to  Aaron  Richard 
son  or  to  the  government. 

' '  If  they  belonged  to  Richardson,  it  is  not  easy  to  see  why  the 
complaint  should  be  made  that  Captain  Crandall  had  violated  the 
order  of  the  Department  in  not  turning  over  the  bonds  to  Major  Had 
dock  or  Major  Lee,  leaving  himself  liable  to  Richardson  for  this  amount. 
If  they  belonged  to  the  government,  it  is  still  more  difficult  to  see  why 
the  government  should  not  have  employed  counsel,  and  protected  its 
rights  to  the  bonds, ' ' 

But  the  Committee  do  see  that  it  was  eminently 
proper  for  Captain  Crandall  to  turn  them  over  to  the 
Supervisors  of  Oneida  county.  At  least  they  approve 
Captain  Crandall 's  action  in  having  done  so. 

But,  notwithstanding  the  Committee's  logic, 
should  not  Captain  Crandall  have  turned  them  over, 
as  ordered,  even  if  they  did  belong  to  Richardson? 
He  held  them  as  Provost  Marshal,  and  when  he  ceased 
to  act  as  such,  and  another  Provost  Marshal  took 
his  place  and  assumed  all  the  duties,  taking  charge  of 
all  the  property,  records  and  business  of  the  office, 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  335 

why  should  not  Captain  Orandall  have  turned  over 
these  bonds  ?  Was  it  not  a  complete  defense,  as  against 
Richardson,  that  the  government  had  so  directed  ? 
Were  Richardson's  rights  in  the  premises  in  jeopardy 
by  a  transfer  of  the  bonds  from  one  incumbent  of  the 
office  of  Provost  Marshal  to  another?  Would  they 
not  legally  be  in  possession  of  the  same  depositary, 
viz.,  the  Provost  Marshal  of  the  District  ? 

But  the  Committee  do  not  say  that,  if  the  bonds 
belonged  to  the  government,  it  is  still  more  difficult 
to  see  why  Captain  Crandall  should  not  have  turned 
them  over  as  ordered,  but  say  that  "  it  is  difficult  to 
see  why  the  government  should  not  have  employed 
counsel  and  protected  its  rights  to  the  bonds."  That 
is  to  say,  having  refused  to  turn  them  over,  and  dur 
ing  the  delay  which  his  disobedience  of  orders  occa 
sioned,  another  claimant  having  been  enabled  to  seize 
them,  the  government  ought  to  be  particular  to  see 
that  Captain  Crandall  is  put  to  no  expense  or  trouble 
in  defending  the  suit,  and  I  am  blamable  for  not  em 
ploying  counsel  to  protect  him  from  the  consequences 
of  his  disobedience  of  my  orders. 

The  remaining  points  in  relation  to  this  branch 
of  the  subject  are  briefly  these : 

Admitting,  for  the  sake  of  the  argument,  that 
Captain  Crandall  ought  not  to  have  turned  over  the 
bonds  to  Major  Haddock,  or  Hoard,  and  admitting 
that  my  order  of  March  30  did  not  include  the 
bonds,  what  excuse  does  the  Committee  offer  in  his 
behalf  for  not  turning  them  over  to  the  United  States 
disbursing  officer,  as  directed,  or  to  his  successor,  Ma 
jor  Beadle  ? 


336 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 


Can  it  be  one  of  those  reasons  which  his  counsel, 
Judge  Hunt,  gives  as  to  the  motives  which  Captain 
Orandall  had  in  retaining  them?  Judge  Hunt  was 
acting  as  Captain  Orandall  s  counsel ;  he  must  be  sup 
posed  to  have  understood  his  motives,  and  he  advised 
him  as  to  his  duties  and  conduct.  In  reply  to  Mr. 
Conkling's  question  (page  98)  as  to  whether  there 
was  any  motive  or  object  about  these  bonds,  on  the 
part  of  Captain  Orandall,  Mr.  Oonkling  or  the  wit 
ness,  "  except  to  enable  the  government  to  hold 
them  for  its  benefit  against  Richardson"  Judge 
Hunt  answers:  "I  know  of  none  but  to  hold  them 
that  the  government  might  have  the  benefit  of  them, 
and  to  compel  the  proper  conduct  of  Richardson  during 
the  Haddock  investigation" 

As  the  testimony  discloses  that  the  first  of  these 
reasons  had  no  effect  on  the  conduct  of  Captain  Oran 
dall  in  disposing  of  the  bonds,  as  shown  by  his 
promptly  surrendering  them,  after  the  Haddock  trial, 
to  the  Supervisors  who  issued  them,  we  are  forced  to 
the  conclusion  that  the  second  reason  was  the  sole 
cause  of  his  failure  to  obey  the  orders  requiring  him 
to  turn  them  over. 

It  appears  from  the  testimony  that  Richardson 
was  the  most  important  witness  against  Major  Had 
dock  ;  that  Mr.  Oonkling  was  the  prosecutor  of  Major 
Haddock ;  and  that  Captain  Orandall  was  a  client  of 
Judge  Hunt's,  and  also  a  witness  against  Major  Had 
dock.  Captain  Orandall  was  not  a  client  of  Mr.  Conk- 
ling's,  although  Mr.  Oonkling  seemed  to  think  that 
such  was  the  impression,  for  he  puts  a  witness  on  the 
stand  to  prove  that  "  he  never  did  act  as  counsel,  or 
professionally,  for  Captain  Orandall^  (page  98). 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  337 

But  still  there  was  an  intimate  relation  existing 
between  them,  which  Mr.  Colliding  describes  with 
much  pathos  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Dana,  dated  March 
13,  1865,  in  which  he  states  (page  48),  in  reference 
to  Captain  Crandall,  u  that  throughout  his  (OrandaWs) 
short  experience  as  Provost  Marshal,  he  has  constantly, 
from  day  to  day,  confided  to  me  his  troubles,  his  pro 
ceedings,  and  the  attempts  made  upon  him." 

It  may  be  assumed  that  Mr.  Conkling,  in  some  of 
these  outpourings,  was  advised  that  Captain  Grandall 
had  been  several  times  ordered  to  turn  over  money 
and  bonds  belonging  to  the  government,  and  that  he 
had  disobeyed  the  orders.  And  while  he  was  confid 
ing  to  Mr.  Conkling  "  all  his  troubles  and  his  proceed 
ings"  it  may  have  been  that  he  disclosed  the  reasons 
why  he  disobeyed  the  orders — one  of  which,  his  dis 
tinguished  counsel  swears,  was  "  to  compel  the  proper 
conduct  of  Richardson  during  the  Haddock  investiga 
tion"  of  which  Mr.  Conkling  was  Judge  Advocate. 

The  relation  of  Richardson  to  the  Haddock  case 
was  that  of  an  informer  and  principal  witness.  He 
claimed  these  bonds  and  Captain  Grandall  refused  to 
turn  them  over,  holding  them,  as  Judge  Hunt  testifies, 
to  compel  ^his  proper  conduct  on  the  Haddock  trial. 
The  Committee  did  not  give  an  opinion  as  to  this  rea 
son  for  not  turning  over  the  bonds  to  the  government. 
But,  as  they  have  fully  justified  Captain  Crandall  in 
all  that  he  did  in  relation  to  these  bonds,  and  as  he 
furnished  the  Committee  the  reasons  for  his  refusal  to 
turn  them  over,  one  of  which  was  that  "he  held  them 
to  compel  the  proper  conduct  of  Richardson  on  the 
Haddock  investigation,"  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  they 


338  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

also  approved  the  reasons  which  induced  the  act.     At 
any  rate,  they  do  not  condemn  them. 

To  understand  the  force  of  this  reason,  let  us 
glance  at  the  situation  of  the  parties  at  the  period  to 
which  Judge  Hunt  refers. 

Much  complaint  had  been  urged  in  reference  to 
the  Utica  office.  Captain  Richardson*  Mr.  Conk- 
ling's  first  selection,  had  been  dismissed  for  alleged 
fraud  (see  page  130),  and  Captain  Orandall  had  been 
suspended  from  duty,  Major  Haddock  having  previ 
ously  telegraphed  to  Captain  Orandall  that  he  "  was 
filling  the  quota  of  Oneida  county  with  bounty  jump 
ers  and  thieves"  (page  142).  Colonel  Tracy  and 
Lieutenant  Lott  had  called  the  attention  of  the  gov 
ernment  to  the  conduct  of  Captain  Crandall;  and 
Colonel  Axtell  had  protested  against  receiving  any 
more  recruits  from  that  office  (see  pages  130  and  131). 
On  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Gonkling  claimed  that  Major 
Haddock  was  perpetrating  frauds  at  Elmira  and  else 
where,  but  denied  that  Captain  Crandall  had  been 
guilty  of  fraud,  and  offered  "  to  become  personally  re 
sponsible  for  him  "  (see  page  48),  while  the  Inspector 
General,  who  was  sent  to  Utica  at  my  request,  to  in 
vestigate,  reported  against  both  Major  Haddock  and 
Captain  Crandall  (see  page  155),  and  recommended 
that  Major  Haddocks  conduct  be  investigated,  and 
that  Captain  Crandall  be  dismissed  the  service. 

The  relations  of  Captain  Orandall  to  the  case  now 
assumed  a  grave  character.  He  could  ask  an  investi 
gation  for  himself,  or  he  could  aid  the  prosecution  of 
Major  Haddock,  and,  by  convicting  him  of  a  part,  or 

*  Not  the  same  man  as  the  Kichardson  spoken  of  above. 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  339 

the  whole,  of  what  was  charged  against  himself,  he 
would  to  a  great  extent  not  only  relieve  his  name  from 
suspicion,  but  exonerate  Mr.  Conkling,  who  had  become 
responsible  for  him,  and  at  the  same  time  run  no  risk 
incident  to  a  trial. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Mr.  Conkling  had 
written  a  letter  to  the  President,  protesting  against 
the  removal  of  Captain  Richardson,  whose  appoint 
ment  he  had  secured,  and,  about  the  13th  of  March, 
Captain  Orandall  prepared  a  defense  of  himself  and  an 
arraignment  of  Major  Haddock,  which  Mr.  Conkling 
had  printed  (page  256  and  page  49),  and  which  the 
latter  followed  up  with  a  letter  to  the  War  Depart 
ment,  denouncing  Major  Haddock  and  eulogizing 
Captain  Orandall  (see  page  48).  This  was  dated  the 
13th  of  March.  The  report  of  Major  Luddington, 
recommending  Captain  CrandaWs  dismissal  from  the 
service,  was  dated  March  31,  and  on  the  3d  day  of 
April  following,  Mr.  Conkling  was  appointed  to  prose 
cute  Major  Haddock.  In  the  meantime,  Mr.  Aaron 
Richardson,  who/6>r  some  time  previous  to  Major  Had- 
docks  connection  with  the  Provost  Marshal  General's 
Bureau  in  western  New  Yorlc,  had  been  operating  at 
Utica  as  a  "  substitute  broker,"  and  was  still  there  in 
that  capacity,  had  committed  offenses  for  which  he 
had  been  arrested,  and  from  which  arrest  he  had  been 
released  by  the  intervention  of  Mr.  Conkling,  as  here 
tofore  stated,  and  in  relation  to  which  release  Mr.  Conk 
ling  had  consulted  and  advised  with  Judge  Hunt,  the 
counsel  of  Captain  Orandall  (see  page  99).  The  con 
sideration  which  Richardson  agreed  to  offer  Mr.  Conk- 
ling  for  his  interference  was  certain  disclosures  which 


340  CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY. 

he  proposed  to  make,  provided  he  should  be  protected 
from  the  penalty  of  the  law  for  his  offenses.  Captain 
Orandall  had  in  his  hands  $20,000  in  Oneida  county 
bonds,  which  belonged  to  the  government,  but  which 
Richardson  claimed  belonged  to  him. 

This  was  the  situation  of  the  parties  at  the  period 
to  which  Jud^e  Hunt  refers. 

o 

The  feelings  and  interests  of  these  parties  may  be 
briefly  considered.  Mr.  Conkling  and  Captain  Cran- 
dall  were  on  terms  of  intimacy  and  cordiality,  but 
were  both  bitterly  hostile  to  Major  Haddock.  Richard- 
son,  on  his  part,  had  two  objects  to  accomplish,  in 
which  he  felt  a  strong  personal  interest.  First,  he 
desired  to  keep  out  of  trouble ;  and  second,  he  was 
anxious  to  get  hold  of  the  $20,000  in  bonds,  which 
Captain  Orandall  held,  and  which  he  claimed.  In  this 
condition  of  things,  it  seems  that  an  understanding 
was  arrived  at,  to  the  effect  that  if,  in  the  rose-water 
style  of  putting  it,  Hichardson  "  would  make  dis 
closures,"  he  should  be  "  protected  "  against  any  prose 
cution  on  the  part  of  the  government,  and  the  $20,000 
should  "  be  held  to  compel  his  proper  conduct  during 
the  investigation  of  the  case  of  Haddock"  As  his  re 
lation  thereto  was  simply  that  of  a  witness,  his  conduct 
on  the  trial  was  the  conduct  of  a  witness.  Being  only 
a  man,  and  a  substitute  broker,  he  was  unable  to  re 
sist  the  opportunity  offered.  It  promised,  at  least, 
indemnity  for  the  past,  if  not  security  for  the  future; 
and  that  was  certainly  more  than  he  had  any  right  to 
expect,  to  say  nothing  of  the  $20,000  in  anticipation. 

The  remaining  portion  of  this  subject  is  found  in 
the  record  of  the  Haddock  Court  Martial,  and  is  thus 


CONKLING    AND    BLAINE-FRY    CONTROVERSY.  341 

introduced  by  Mr.  Colliding \s  counsel,  on  page  195  of 
this  record : 

uMr.  HotchMss  called  the  attention  of  the  Com 
mittee  to  that  pai't  of  the  record  of  the  Haddock  Court 
Martial,  showing  that  Richardson  was  a  witness,  and 
showing  the  materiality  and  importance  of  his  evi 
dence,"  cfec. 

This,  it  is  thought,  sufficiently  explains  the  sub 
ject  of  the  bonds. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


JAN    2  1948 
90c'55JB 


5D 
5  1955  L  li         16*66  -1PM 


JUN7     '62 
RECt)  ^ 

JUN29 


REC'D  LD 

FEB18-65-11 


DEPT. 


04  1994 


LD  21-100m-9,'47(A5702sl6)476 


U.C.BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


LIBRARY  Ui 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WH1 

LOAN  DEI- 1. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  BEFORE  CLOSING  TIME 
ON  LAST  DATE  STAMPED  BELOW 


u^.n^v  y5^ 

ti  3  '65 

* 

J(/tl3^,4 

1 

1 

&' 

LD  62A-50m-2,'64 
(E3494slO)9412A 

General  Library 
University  of  California 

Rprkflpv 

